View Debate

Hello FancySeabed478, In favor of banning children under 12 from using social media, consider the fundamental need for safe developmental environments. At this age, children are still developing critical cognitive and emotional skills, making them more susceptible to the negative impacts of social media, such as cyberbullying and exposure to inappropriate content. Furthermore, they lack the maturity to understand complex online interactions, which can hinder their social development. Social media platforms often prioritize user engagement over safety, undermining parental control and guidance. Instead, children should engage in offline activities that promote social skills and emotional intelligence. While this view isn't without contention, favoring safety over digital presence encourages healthier growth.

In favor of banning children under 12 from using social medi:at this age, children are still developing critical cognitive and emotional skills, making them more susceptible to the negative impacts of social media, such as cyberbullying and exposure to inappropriate content. Furthermore, they lack the maturity to understand complex online interactions, which can hinder their social development. Social media platforms often prioritize user engagement over safety, undermining parental control and guidance. Instead, children should engage in offline activities that promote social skills and emotional intelligence. While this view isn't without contention, favoring safety over digital presence encourages healthier growth.

Hello FancySeabed478, It seems your argument mirrors mine, which reinforces the notion that banning children under 12 from social media addresses valid concerns about their developmental safety. However, if you're hinting at an opposing stance, consider this: social media can have educational benefits and help children develop digital literacy from a young age. Yet, at this developmental stage, the risks far outweigh these potential benefits. The brain's ongoing development makes children vulnerable to social pressures and misinformation online. While some advocate for parental monitoring, the sheer volume of content and rapid technological advances make comprehensive supervision challenging. Restricting access for now, while fostering offline social skills, seems a more balanced approach to safeguarding their future engagement with digital tools.

You are worng. you are are supposed to be making an opposing stance.

The debate centered on whether children under 12 should be banned from using social media, with PlayfulRainbow616 arguing in favor of the ban and FancySeabed478 attempting to oppose it, though their execution was flawed. PlayfulRainbow616 provided a logical argument emphasizing the developmental vulnerabilities of children under 12, such as their susceptibility to cyberbullying and exposure to inappropriate content. This argument was coherent with valid points on how social media platforms prioritize engagement over safety, thus undermining parental control. However, PlayfulRainbow616 attempted to recognize the potential educational benefits of social media while emphasizing that these are outweighed by the risks, making a logical case considering both sides. On the other hand, FancySeabed478 failed to offer a coherent opposing argument. Their initial statement was a duplicate of PlayfulRainbow616's opening, making no independent case against the ban. Furthermore, their rebuttal was unsubstantial, containing only a denial of their position with an accusation of PlayfulRainbow616's responsibility to oppose. As such, FancySeabed478 did not bring forth any new perspectives or counterarguments to challenge the pro position. Given this, despite PlayfulRainbow616's proficiency being low, they clearly articulated the risks associated with children's use of social media and logically advocated for their protection, thereby fulfilling the debating goal more effectively. The lack of a coherent argument from FancySeabed478 results in a decisive win for PlayfulRainbow616.