cell phones should be allowed in school

My opponent has attempted a refutation but has failed to adequately do so. I will point out these flaws I will quotate and underline my opponents statements.Flaw 1-"Also, I never meant that students shouldn't be able to have them in school, I meant that students shouldn't be able to use them during the class."My opponent is using the red hearing fallacy here. The resolution of this debate is cell phones should be allowed in school. Since the resolution is as stated above it is what we are going to debate. It seems my opponent is trying to change the subject because he no longer wants to assert the resolution. In witch case means he drops his case. Logically if you are not arguing for the resolution then you must be against it or have no opinion and we can not be servants to two masters so his opinion is either support the resolution or not. We cannot discuss what was meant to be said but exactly what the resolution is. When he made this debate he clicked the yes when it sad is this what you want to debate. So we cannot change the subject now .So I must ask my opponent is he against this resolution or not because as of this moment his position is not clear and/or contradictory.Flaw 3- "my opponent admitted that cell phones do have a tendency to distract and annoy other students in the classroom."My opponent is using the strawman fallacy here. I said that they can be a distraction but a positive one. Never did I say they annoy other students or distract other students.(Please refer to my second paragraph of round 2) It is obvious though that you think so. Typically students have their phones on silent unless teachers allow them to which is rare. Of course there is the argument based on induction that a student might forget to turn their phone on silent before they enter the class room. If it goes of what does he student do? He quickly turns it off. What does the teacher do? Usually nothing because the teacher knows the student will quickly turn it off to prevent any further disturbance or get the phone confiscated. So then I have to ask how are cells phones an annoyance or distraction that detriments the learning environment if the unlikely possibility of a student forgetting to turn their phone off is corrected quickly? Flaw 4- "And yes, they can be used for safety; after class."My opponent fails to realize that emergencies of security, and medical proportion can happen during school hours. Crime and medical emergencies don't hold themselves off until a student gets out of school. He dos not realize that a student could be by themselves somewhere in the school and stop breathing or have a life threatening emergency. If no one is around, how is that student going to get help? The student having that cell phone on him in school could be the difference of life and death for that student. So cell phones can be used for safety before, during and after class hours.Unclear point 1- "I don't think that a student is going to get in trouble for using their phone if they got mugged."Are you suggesting that a majority of students get mugged for their phones? and are you ignoring the fact that some if not most schools allow students to have cell phones?Flaw 5- "Now I know there are some of us who will follow the rules, but lets face it, most students will abuse the power of being able to use their phone in class, etc....Of course people are going to text etc... But does it really mater if students text or not? Here are the possibilities; It is possible to multitask texting and paying attention in class. I've done it my whole school career and I obtained great grades. How is this possible? I think it is the status quo that in class we take notes. Typically the teacher puts notes on the board etc.. If a student takes notes efficiently enough then they will have pauses in between the notes or after the notes to text. It is also possible that the students parents may need to get in touch with them during class for family emergencies and etc.. A student may be suicidal and need to talk to a friend for help. However If a student makes the stupid decision to text instead of paying attention or finding someway to mutitask it is there own fault. But, There are many things students will do when they don't care about class like drawing on paper, desks,pencils, and talking. So then should we then not allow students to use paper because it is possible that they may draw instead of pay attention? NO. Should We not allow students to sit in desks because they may possibly draw on desks instead of pay attention? NO should we ban pencils, and ban talking on the school grounds? NO. Do you see my point here? Im trying to assert that yes there are students that are not going to pay attention, that don't care about school and are going to do something else. We should not punish the majority for the disregard of the minority of that majority. It's just not fair nor is the positive prospects of cell phones worth loosing.Flaw 6- "so that one 90 sheet notebook that you would use to take notes doesn't really make an impact on the "environmental deficit "It seems my opponent doesn't recognize 90 as a number nor did he complete his math? 90 sheets of paper which he proposed times the number of students in your average high school ( my high school had about 1500 students) of course only counting students with cell phones who use the note taking feature multiplied by the number of schools available is a huge number my friend more than millions of trees can be saved this way. So how is this not helping the environment?Flaw 7- "My opponent stated that "every penny counts in these tough economic times." Well lets see, an average "smartphone", as my opponent said, costs anywhere from $200-$500, etc... This figure is based on the completely flawed assumption that at one time everyone is buying knew phones and plans. False. So ignoring the data my opponent proposed, my plan is about 80 a month. Of course that is more than pencil and paper. However I will partially accept this statement because a cell phone bill is more expensive over time then buying paper and pencil. His figure of the cost of paper and pencil is flawed as well because costs varies. However my opponent ignored everything else said in that paragraph. Cell phones can help students stay organized, keep up with assignments, act as a study aid during free periods, And decrease the strain on the environment witch is irrefutable. (Im condensing now due to limited characters remaining.)My opponent also made a statement about the recordings. What I proposed is looking up a word on your phone is faster than looking it up in the dictionary. Of course one may not pay full attention while looking up the word on the phone but neither would they while looking in the dictionary if not more with the dictionary. SO my opponents rebuttal to this point is invalid. He also attempts to say access to the Internet can possibly be bad so I can't use the point. That's not a good reason to not respond to my claim. Yes cell phones have good and bad. Pro and Con are presenting good and bad. Thus debating. It almost seems like my opponents logic is saying, " since this point is debatable then we should not debate it." That is not logical at all. There is no denying that some schools don't have Internet access. So then students who have access on their phones should be allowed to use their phones to help them and possibly the class in school. About calculators, Con assumed all teachers don't want students to use calculators. My algebra, advanced functions, geometry etc classes allowed it. So obviously teachers do allow students to use calculators. Yes some students won't use them. That proves nothing.As we can see con has made many flawed statements, and assumptions in this debate. All of my contentions are sound while cons case has been debunked. If we re-evaluate this debate, logically I believe it is justified to vote on pros behalf.