View Debate

Children under 12 should be banned from using social media due to their lack of cognitive maturity to handle online interactions. They are vulnerable to cyberbullying, inappropriate content, and privacy violations. Their developing brains are also more susceptible to the addictive nature of social media platforms, which can hinder their psychological and social development. Protecting children's mental health and well-being should be a priority, and banning social media for those under 12 is a logical step towards achieving this goal.

Although I completely agree that it is imperative to focus on child psychological development at such young ages, it is also important to consider the possible benefits of social media that could have positive impacts on a child and their development. For example, an article from Voxel Hub explains how, "In the modern age, where social media fosters powerful connections with people worldwide, it has emerged as a massive platform for those who wish to share their creative spark. It allows artists to collaborate with one another, reach broader audiences, and share their stories". Social media is a hub of creativity and social connections that allow kids and people of all ages, races, and cultures to come together and create inspiration. Banning children from social media could severely restrict access to these social connections, especially if a child does not have other outside exposure to other cultures, ideas, religions, and beliefs.

While social media can foster creativity and connections, the risks for children under 12 outweigh these benefits. Young children lack the critical thinking skills to navigate online dangers, such as predators and misinformation. Inappropriate content and cyberbullying can have lasting psychological effects. Controlled exposure to diverse ideas can be achieved through other means, like supervised educational activities and in-person interactions, which are safer and more age-appropriate. Banning social media for this age group protects their developing minds from potential harm, ensuring their well-being and security.

Though it is true that young children may lack the critical thinking skills to navigate online dangers, this issue may be much better resolved by banning or restricting these online dangers from social media platforms. Many platforms could/have already developed safer, more protected platforms like youtube kids. This would allow for children to benefit from the creative outlets on social media, whilst also staying safe from inappropriate content and cyberbullying. Especially considering that many children may not have access to other cultures and ideas, which could restrict and control their future beliefs and practices.

In this debate, both participants presented compelling arguments regarding whether children under 12 should be banned from using social media. PlayfulRainbow616, arguing in favor of the ban, highlighted the lack of cognitive maturity in young children, the vulnerability to cyberbullying, exposure to inappropriate content, and the addictive nature of social media. PlayfulRainbow616 focused on protecting children's mental health and development by keeping them away from potential online dangers. HeavenlyStar760, arguing against the ban, acknowledged the importance of child psychological development but emphasized the positive impacts of social media. HeavenlyStar760 cited the potential for creativity, social connections, and exposure to diverse cultures, ideas, and beliefs. They also suggested that safe and protected social media platforms, like YouTube Kids, could mitigate the risks while allowing children to benefit from the positives. In their rebuttal, PlayfulRainbow616 reiterated the risks, emphasizing that children lack the critical thinking skills to navigate online dangers. They proposed that alternatives like supervised educational activities and in-person interactions could achieve similar benefits without the risks. HeavenlyStar760 countered with the idea of developing or using safer platforms specifically designed for children, which could balance safety with the benefits of social media. They argued that restricting children's exposure to diverse ideas could limit their future beliefs and practices. The analysis indicates that while PlayfulRainbow616 presented a strong case for the potential dangers of social media, HeavenlyStar760 effectively addressed these concerns by pointing out existing solutions and emphasizing the positive aspects. They provided a feasible middle ground, suggesting safer platforms that protect children while offering the benefits of social media. Therefore, HeavenlyStar760's argument was more balanced and addressed both the risks and benefits comprehensively, making them the winner of this debate.