View Debate

Absolutely there should be limits on screen time for children! Unrestricted screen exposure is poisoning their minds, deteriorating their health, and stunting their social skills. Are we really going to sit back and let screens babysit our kids while their attention spans shrink and obesity rates skyrocket? We're sacrificing quality life experiences for pixels on a screen. Wake up! It's our duty to set boundaries and ensure that our children grow up healthy, both mentally and physically. The consequences of inaction are too grave to ignore.

d

You must be kidding, PristineSwamp347! Silence speaks louder than words, and your lack of a counterargument only proves you can't deny the facts. Children's health and development are at stake, and you can't even muster a defense for unlimited screen time? If you're admitting defeat already, then let's get serious about protecting our children's futures. Limiting screen time is a no-brainer.

deez nuta

The debate on whether there should be limits on screen time for children was decidedly one-sided. DreamyGarden529 (Pro) provided assertive and compelling arguments, emphasizing the detrimental effects of excessive screen time on children's health, attention spans, and social skills. Their stance highlighted the urgency of implementing boundaries to protect children's mental and physical well-being. On the other hand, PristineSwamp347 (Neg) failed to present a coherent counterargument. Their initial response 'd' lacked substance, and their follow-up rebuttal 'deez nuta' was not only irrelevant but also displayed a lack of seriousness and respect for the debate format. This inadequate response left the Pro's arguments unchallenged and further solidified their position. In summary, DreamyGarden529 effectively argued in favor of limiting screen time for children, while PristineSwamp347 provided no meaningful opposition. Therefore, the winner of this debate is clearly the Pro side, DreamyGarden529.