People over twelve should be allowed to use social networking sites.

Thanking Con for his input; I'll respond.Contention One: ConnectivityMy opponent appears to have consented that Apple Messenger and Kik are beaten by Facebook; which is good! But my opponent argues that there are better SMS and E-mail services than the ones provided by Facebook. TextSecure is an example my opponent provides. While it does seem to be better than standard messaging services; I'd point out that (correct me if I'm wrong) it is only available on Android phones and not phones such as the iPhone. If that's the case, I argue that TextSecure fails to my contention: connectivity. I'll consent privacy, but connectivity? My opponent has not shown how it actually beats SMS like Facebook for the contention provided. Hence, my opponent's response is largely an evasion. Also, E-mails services are surely not SMS! They are for letters or formal intentions, and it is not a text messenger. Thus, E-mail doesn't work as an example for that fact that my contention focuses on connectivity between SMS, not E-mails. (I will address privacy further in my post). "As you can see there are a plethora of [safer] alternatives" We can't see that yet, my friend!Contention Two: MaturityI would hope that my opponent doesn't allow this quote to support his stance: "Since logic and sophisticated reasoning don't kick in until high school" Well, in the U.S.A. (which I'll assume you're referring to) one starts high school at 14[1][2]. The resolution is on 13+, which leaves one year of "immaturity" if you will. However, even having said that, if you read my opponent's source; it become clear that this article was talking about young children[3]. Specifically, ones under 13. Hence, I believe my opponent's has semi-quote mined. I'll grant that Mrs O'Keeffe doesn't agree with my resolution, but she has been quoted out of the article's context. Thus, semi-quote mining.When I was talking about the data; I was trying to warn my opponent about avoiding any fallacy, specifically the correlation equals causation fallacy. In this case, the fallacy could be "age causes maturity". I never denied this as a general trend, but warned that for specifics. (13+ vs 16+) we need more data than a general trend. As of yet, my opponent hasn't provided any. Note One: Privacy((I'll call it a note for now, because my opponent hasn't actually presented this formally.)) It is, of course, a valid concern: privacy. Children are sometimes ensnared by predators or cyber-bullies. But, I would point to the actual facts we have here, instead of assuming that any case reported by the media represents a high percent of children.From my opponent's own source: "There are now more than 7.5 million Facebook users younger than 13[3]" 7.5 million! Or 7,500,000 people under thirteen using Facebook. I seriously doubt that even two million cases of under thirteen predators are reported by Facebook each year. The scale we are talking about here is huge! While privacy may occasionally be compromised for various reasons, I hope my opponent will understand and agree with my point of view here. It's relatively nothing, speaking from an objective, number standpoint. My opponent would want to deny these millions (dare I say billion{s}?)of people (not under thirteen; that was just an example) a chance to connect, share, play, enjoy, benefit, and organise on SNS because of a relatively few cases each year that are hyped up by the media? No reason as to why this should be the case has been given.On that note: I'll thank my opponent once more, the audience, the voters, and see y'all next round!Source(s):[1]http://answers.yahoo.com...[2]http://ph.answers.yahoo.com...[3]http://content.time.com...