cell phones should be allowed in school

He ignores my first and third point, only touching the 2nd (which I'll rebut in a sec.) and ignores both of my utility arguments; I'll get to the importance of this in a second, but basically because he hasn't addressed them you can assume he doesn't have an argument or that he agrees. These points stand as is, and this is going to be a major factor in the round. On the Pro: - First he gives us this analogy about calculators and decides this is adequate proof or something, but it really isn't. He doesn't tell us how the use of phones is a right, rather he tells us he can use his calculator in class. I'd assume he'd be using it in math class. Because it would assist his education. I maintain the use of cell phones is not a right, while ownership is. He gives no contrary evidence besides a flawed analogy. To strengthen the fact that it's not a right, I'll give you another analogy. The purpose of a theater is to present a play to an audience, at the point where using a camera with a flash would distract the actors and thus decrease their performance, the use of flash photography is prohibited. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Bible, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants or whatever other document you use to determine where your rights are, does it say use of cell phones is a right. Next, he gives us a point about "emergencies" but there are several flaws with this argument: First: Since he doesn't attack point one or three, and he illogically attempts to rebut point two, we can conclude that point 3 still stands: "Since the USE of cell phones isn't a preordained right, their use can only be measured in whether it hinders the institutions ability to perform it's goal (to teach students.)" He agrees we measure things in their ability for institutions to perform, and since I just refuted his flimsy argument against why it's not a preordained right we can assume that the aforementioned bit holds true. Because of that, we go to: "schools are empowered to disallow cell phone use, THE DEBATE IS FOCUSED ON WHETHER THAT USE IS A HINDRANCE OR NOT." (can't bold, so I capitalized.) At that point it being an asset in an emergency is IRRELEVANT (same thing) to the round, and so there is no benefit coming from the Pro, just the flimsy argument about point two. Second: They aren't even an asset in an emergency. Schools have a telephone in every classroom and walkie-talkies between SRO and Administrative Disciplinary Staff not to mention that close to, if not every teacher has their own personal cell phone. So unless the emergency cut the phone lines, disabled radio frequencies and destroyed every teacher's phone then student's phones wouldn't even be USED, much less NEEDED. Now, look to what I noted at the beginning of this: He ignores my two points, and so you can carry them through. What we're seeing is this round is the following: 1) The Pro agrees to the Con's argumentative framework on the whole, and doesn't adequately refute what he disagrees with, so the framework stands. 2) The Pro never links in to that framework, rather provides another flimsy point which has no relevance, but also no sense behind it. 3) The Con provides two clear links to the framework on how cell phone use hinders school progress, neither points that are refuted. At this point in the debate, it is abundantly clear that the Con has one. I provide you with direct harms of affirming that are never addressed, whereas he only gives you a flimsy point that doesn't even present a benefit.