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

I thank Con for his final round! To start, it's apparent that Con dropped several points of contention I raised in the previous round. To be clear, he only responded to arguments I - III, and then V. Argument IV and VI were dropped and had no response whatsoever from Con. Furthermore, he dropped each of the four rebuttals I presented. Therefore, I extend all dropped arguments, as they currently remain standing unchallenged. RebuttalsI. Age issueI believe Con misunderstood my age clarification from the first round. I was not talking about our own ages, but rather I was talking about the legal age of maturity in each of our respective countries - which is 18 and 19. Anyone under those ages are considered children. The entire purpose of that clarification was to show the audience that when we use the term "children" we are talking about anyone below those respective ages. The fact that Con is 14 years old himself holds no relevance to this debate, nor does his own personal definition of the age of "children" in his final round. If he did so in the 1st round, or even the 2nd, then I'd allow the change - but altering the definition of children in the final round is unacceptable in any debate setting. Furthermore, I do believe that Oxford Dictionaries outweigh the personal definition of my opponent (which is based on his own age). II. Internet AccessCon says we can't have phones in schools, but his own first round shows that such a claim is purely relative and changes from school-to-school, country-to-country. In schools that both allows phones and utilize them for educational purposes, the access to internet that phones provide is a clear benefit for the children using them when needing to work on projects or answer questions. There are also multiple instances where phones can be used by children in the streets (outside of school) for a wide variety of purposes. Just because some people claim that children play games on their phones doesn't prove that they are doing that *all the time*. As I stated in the previous round, perhaps they need to look up directions or even the weather. Con states that the parents know where they are going and knows all the locations - but the whole point is that the *children* might not know such things and thus benefit from having a phone with internet access to utilize, it's not like the parent will be around 24/7. Lastly, I'm not sure what relevance using a computer has to do with anything. I'm showing that there are benefits for children using a cell phone with internet access, being able to also use a computer is a non-issue, since these are two separate things altogether. III. GPSThis rebuttal from Con falls short on several levels. First and foremost, I never claimed we *need* GPS. I merely show another benefit of children owning and using cell phones that comes from the additional security provided by the tracking features. Con never challenged this benefit itself, but rather attempts to counter the benefit by claiming that the mother of the children would know where they are. This is a faulty assumption as there have been multiple instances where children get lost or separated from the parents, much less go places that the parent isn't aware of. Furthermore, children might not always know that they are wandering or going to a dangerous place when they are out playing with friends in the surrounding community. The real danger is found in child predators and the reality that children do get lost. To believe that the child's mother will *always* know where the child is, or that the child won't *ever* wander into a dangerous place by chance is nothing but faulty assumptions with no supporting evidence. On the other hand, all one needs to do is visit the following link to see the reality and statistics of children getting lost without any means of tracking them: http://www.missingkids.com...What the link shows is that there are cases where children are abducted against their will, and thus having a cell-phone which can help in tracking the child's location is a clear benefit in regards to children being able to own and use cell phones. IV. Staying in TouchCon extends his rebuttal against my safety arguments into this one. I believe this falls short of the specific issue I raised, which was that cell phones allow children to stay in constant contact with their parents and friends. Should an emergency arise, the benefits of having an open line of communication with their guardians can be the difference between life and death, as I showed in my previous round with the school-shooting scenario, among others. His previous rebuttals do not extend to this argument for the sole reason that this argument was unique and presented a unique advantage. As such, I extend this argument as it truly stands unchallenged by my opponent. V. Older ChildrenCon re-hashes his claim that this debate revolves solely around young children. The problem is that Con never stated young children neither in the resolution nor 1st round. On the other hand, I showed what the legal age of maturity were in our respective countries and proved that with the definitions I gave at the start of this debate. In both of our countries, people who can drive are able to obtain their licenses while still under the legal age of maturity, thus children can drive. My point revolved around the fact that it's absurd to allow a child to drive if we aren't going to even allow them to own and use mobile phones which require much less knowledge, focus, and training to use. The argument also included the benefits of allowing children who drive to also use cell phones should a road-side emergency arise. In closing, I have rebutted each point raised by Con. I've also extended each argument and rebuttal of my own that were dropped by my opponent, as they currently remain standing unchallenged. I thank Con for this challenge, and look forward to any and all challenges in the future. Thank you.