People Should Be Allowed to Have Cell Phones in Public Movie Theaters

==Con Closing Statement==I will reply to my opponent's points and bring up the important issues in this debate.My opponent says that theater workers have the right to remove a distracting patron and links this to cell phones. However, in Regal Cinemas for example, guests are asked to refrain from using cell phones, but not banned. [1] Employees have no legal ability to remove someone for a ringing cell phone during the movie. I believe they should have that ability, which is what I am arguing on the con side of this debate.My opponent also says phones can be set to vibrate. However, as I have pointed out again and again, just because people have the option to set their phone on vibrate does not mean that they will take it. As I cited in my rebuttal, phone ringing incidents do occur. This also applies to screen-dimming."Phones have the option to ignore calls by simply clicking a "Respond with text" that simply says "I am too busy to answer the phone, send me a message." The receiver of the text can then wait until the movie is done, or leave into the hall to address the message."By turning your phone off, you implicitly say that you are busy without interrupting the movie. Leaving the theater distracts other movie patrons as the phone's owner must stand up and fumble around in the darkness, blocking the view of the screen in the process."1. Phone is silenced, no sound issue.2. The appropriate authority figures within the theaters can assess the situation is the person is found causing this issue."This does not address the issue of screens at all. My second contention regarding distracting phone screens still stands."People have the ability to report these issues."Although a moviegoer can go complain to an authority figure, there is no good way to report and possibly remove an offender without disrupting your own enjoyment of the movie. Reporting the issue also cannot fix the fact that the offender has ruined the movie for you."Once again, the man had the ability to go to the authority figure and ask him to deal with this. It is not my fault that this individual over reacted and ignored his options."Of course I am not blaming my opponent for the man's actions. I am just pointing out that potential phone users can be threatened by quick-tempered patrons for using cell phones in the movie theater."1. It allows the person to respond to emergency situations by simply standing up, and exiting the theater door to answer the call."This may be a small benefit but it does not outweigh the detrimental distractions to other movie theater patrons."2. For people who regularly get business calls, they are able to...appropriately respond to calls with a text or, once again, getting up and leaving the movie to answer it."A business call is hardly something to bother a hundred other movie viewers with."3. If individuals were not allowed to have them, then that must mean a type of search on the individual to make sure they do not have a phone, or "cell jamming device" be implemented in every theater, which would not be cheap for every movie theater to establish."This is not a benefit of having a cell phone. Even considering this, there are alternatives like a low-cost paint job that would block signals. [2]At the end of this debate, all three of my contentions stand strong. My opponent tries to deny that there is a problem with cell phones in movie theaters, saying silencing and dimming can fix everything. However, I have given specific examples in my rebuttal showing that cell phones are a clear problem in theaters, aggravating moviegoers and ruining the entertaining purpose of movies, while putting the phone's owner at risk of embarrassment or physical assault. The harms of allowing cell phones far outweigh the meager benefits my opponent has offered. Please look to the Con side in this debate, and thank you for the wonderful debate![1] http://www.regmovies.com...[2] http://www.csmonitor.com...