This House Believes that Children should be Allowed to Own and use Moblie Phones.

*I will be using the terms "cell-phone" and "mobile phone" interchangeably.* ArgumentsI. Internet AccessSince we are discussing modern mobile phones, I believe a clear advantage right from the start for children owning one is that they will have access to the Internet. If a child is working on a project for school, or merely having a discussion with someone and needs to find information fast, a cell-phone can provide the access to the vast amounts of information needed by the child at that moment. Thus the clear benefit is that cell-phones can help a child obtain answers to questions very quickly and easily, which can help with studies as well as other simple daily questions like daily weather or finding directions to go someplace new. II. Tracking DevicesMany modern cell-phones include GPS or Satellite location technology. When first turning on a majority of newer mobile phones, you are immediately prompted by the phone to allow location tracking. Furthermore, even if such technology isn't turned on, cell-phone towers can still help locate children due to the phone signals relaying off the nearest cell-phone tower. What this means is that cell-phones provide an additional level of security with children by being able to assist in locating the child should he/she ever get lost or abducted. The most important thing is that a parent or guardian can track where their child is to ensure that they are safe and where they are supposed to be at any moment should they install such an app on the phone, and can still benefit from their child having the cell-phone even if such an app isn't installed. III. Staying in TouchI believe a very clear advantage of children owning cell-phones is that it allows the child and parent to stay in touch. Say a child stays after school to work on a project or for a sports event. The child is able to notify the parent and actively keep the parent updated if he/she needs a ride home afterwards. This is important because things like pay-phones are becoming less and less common, or perhaps the school offices are closed by the time the after-school activity ends. With a child owning a cell-phone, there is no need to worry about such things, nor would such things even present an issue. This argument also ties into safety. Should an emergency situation arise, either on the parents end or the child's end, they will be able to actively communicate with one another as needed. The benefit of this is made clearly evident with the recent strings of school shootings that have occurred in America the past couple of years. For instance, the Washington State School shooting that occurred on Oct. 24th, 2014. A dailymail article showcases the benefits of allowing children to own cell-phones during that situation. An excerpt from the article: A crying mother called to report a text from her daughter, but when the operator tried to comfort her by saying police were on the way, it didn't help. 'My daughter is not following lock-down directions and she and other kids have run from their classroom,' the woman said. 'She's away from her classroom right now. What advice can I give her?' [1] What this shows us is that because the daughter had a cell-phone, the mother was able to communicate to her the advice given by the police operator on the other side after the daughter fled the classroom. Without a cell-phone, the mother certainly wouldn't have been able to communicate the advice necessary to best protect and ensure the well-being of her daughter. In fact, she might not had even known that her daughter was alive, which in itself is a degree of parental torment that no-one should have to suffer through. The fact that cell-phones allow children to remain in touch with parents, especially in horrendous scenarios such as the school shooting above, showcases yet another clear advantage of allowing children to own cell-phones. IV. ResponsibilityAnother benefit of allowing children to own cell-phones is that it allows the parents to teach the child about responsibility. They can set guidelines for the child such as texting them at a specific time, or rules about taking care of the phone and not breaking it. The child is responsible for the phone, and as such can learn the importance of caring for an object. This also ties into teaching a child discipline, since if the child abuses or neglects the phone they can have it taken away by the parent as punishment for failing to properly care for it. V. Older childrenFor older children who can already legally drive, a cell-phone can serve as a protective device once more should any kind of road-side emergency arise. For instance, if a child is driving and gets a flat tire, he/she can call either their parents or a local towing company for assistance. Should an accident occur, the child can contact the authorities and emergency services which could very well be the difference between life and death. Thus, it seems like with older children the advantages of owning a cell-phone becomes even more clear, as it serves, yet again, as a device that can help the child when unforeseen situations or emergencies arise. VI. MaturityI find it very unsettling to think that a child between the ages of 16-18, who can legally drive, shouldn't be allowed to use a device like a cell-phone. We'd literally be allowing a child to own and operate a heavy-machine for the purpose of travel, yet wouldn't allow them to own a handheld device that serves a purpose for communication? It just doesn't make sense. If a child is mature enough to legally own and operate a vehicle on highways, surely they have the maturity and capability to own and operate a hand-held device. I believe this is also the biggest flaw of proponents who argue in support of Con's side, there is clearly a vast difference of maturity between "children" when that term encompasses anyone from 5 - 18/19 years old. I do believe that there should be some restrictions for *very young* children, but to argue that a 16-19 year old shouldn't be allowed to own a phone is just absurd. For these reasons, I believe we should allow children to own and use mobile (cell) phones.RebuttalsLong-term health risksThe biggest flaw with Con's reliance on the WHO report of May 2011 is that they merely claim that it's "possibly carcinogenic". So, ultimately, there is no *actual* proof that they *are* carcinogenic. Furthermore, there is no legal or moral grounds to ban the usage of something that is "possibly carcinogenic" when there are multiple things that are proven to be carcinogenic while still being legally usable by children such as chemotherapy, engine exhausts from cars they drive, insecticides and cleaning products - thus there is no ground for us to ban something that is "possibly carcinogenic" when we allow them use of things which are definitely carcinogenic. Pro even concedes that: "It is true there is no total scientific proof about this..." but then relies on the precautionary principle and argues that until science can prove it's completely safe, we shouldn't allow children to use them. This is ridiculous, science hasn't yet to prove that the usage of automobiles are completely safe, and yet we allow children to use them. Unless Con can show that his incredibly high standards placed on science to prove something as completely safe is justifiable, this argument fails to negate the motion. Mobile Phones are too ExpensiveThis is a non-issue if the parents simply buy the phone for them. Con fails to realize that there are such things as "family plans" where the child is bundled into the same payment plan as their parents. He states "a few rich families might be able to afford this", but that is nothing more than an unproven assumption on his part. According to Pew Research, 80% of children aged 14-17 already have cell phones. Even 66% of 11-14 year olds have cell phones. [2] As the image above shows, even families with less than $30,000 in annual earnings has a majority that owns cell-phones. There is no way that banning phones would "reduce the financial strain on poorer families" when that strain isn't mandatory in the first place. No-one is forcing them to go buy a phone, thus it logically follows that a poorer family wouldn't be financially burdened in the first place if they aren't even forced to buy one. Distractions in SchoolsSchools already have measures in place to prevent such distractions from arising, such as rules to turn off the phone or to not have a phone on you. This argument can just as easily be applied to note-passing or windows in classrooms, as both of those also cause distractions. Ultimately, I believe the benefits of having access to a cell-phone in schools for safety purposes far outweigh the potential harms of being distracted in class. This argument also seems to contradict Con's earlier point about how certain nations actively utilize phones for educational purposes in the classrooms. Perhaps what it really comes down to is whether the school takes advantages of the learning oppounities vs. suppressing access to them. I believe the former far outweighs the latter. Open to AbuseI believe my arguments relating to responsibility and discipline counter this argument. There is potential abuse in all things, restricting access to just one thing that can *potentially* be abused removes the opportunity to teach children on the proper use of such things. We can abuse ice-cream as well, and cause serious health risks to ourselves, but if we are taught to eat in moderation, the abuse becomes non-existent. The same applies here, as with anything that can lead to abuse, we have the opportunity and ability to teach children how to responsibility avoid such things, and thus successfully use the cell-phone without abusing it in any way. Sources: [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[2] http://www.howtolearn.com...