This house believes that the popularity of child celebrities has caused more harm than good

Good morning members of the house, The opposition would like to clearly states the notion it believes in before heading any further, we the members of the opposition believe that "a child under the age of fourteen, who attains the status of a celebrity cannot pose a threat to society" I the first speaker will address certain inaccuracies presented by the former speaker and proceed to make points on role models and parenting my points intertwined within the addresses of the firsts speakers inaccuracies. Our second speaker will address issues of morale and current trends finally our third speaker will close with our summary and a few additional points. Opening government I must say started off well, I see how their argument; put forth very eloquently, can convince the majority how being a Child celebrity is act that should be condemned. But never the less I would like to put forth certain statements made by their first speaker that stands on "debatable ground" (pun intended); and as I do this I shall make my own points clear. "Materialism" according to the oxford dictionary is "the belief that money, possessions and physical comforts are more important than spiritual values" spiritual " meaning morale. A compromise on morale value for objects of monetary worth is called materialism; thieves are materialists. The desire to have monetary worth is not materialism. If a parent buys expensive clothing for a child because they were to go on a public platform, the intention is to make their child appealing; this intention is good and the parent is willing to do it cause if they weren"t they wouldn"t, if a sense of pride begins to arise within the child, which will eventually surface if existed, it is the role of the parent to take corrective action, which all smart parents do. To add a bit more context, if a person were to own a lot it wouldn"t make them a materialist, it is the means to gaining these goods that account for materialism and not owning it in itself. Materialism damages mental health agreed, but no research shows that children in position of material can become materialists just by possession alone. To feel bad that I have to degrade from a Rolex to a titan is one thing, but to throw a tantrum because of it is materialism. In the second substantive that the speaker mentions, he talks about incorrect values that society will adopt; those values being Narcissism and materialism; the adoption of these values are solely based on what a child looks at when they see the celebrity. If attention is paid to the glamour of the life they life and it begins to affect their own personality it is wrong but if attention is paid to what they do, the values they adopt will be different. Children should learn to differentiate between a good role model and a bad role model; obsession must be avoided. Child celebrities are people who can be used to show instances of giving and donating through charity rallies they can also be testaments to children that age is not a barrier to accomplishment. In conclusion I would like to add that celebrities as individuals should have no obligations to what they do in society weather they are doing good or bad; yes it affects their image and view of people who look up to them but the reason the masses looked up to them in the first place is because of the role they played on some TV series or some YouTube video or any statement on social media. Distinguishing between the two is very important (social role and individual role). The point highlighted here is that celebrities should not be concerned about their viewers when it comes to their own individual action. A POI that I would take the initiative to point out is that the biggest threat to children is cyber bullying. 1/4 children undergo some form of bullying on the internet a statistic by the NSPCC