My parents should allow me to buy a cell phone.

::Framework:: My opponent offers the value of convenience but, (1) he gives no reason whatsoever that convenience is valuable at all. Because he wants to debate in an 'LD style' this means you reject his value because any arguments supporting the value of convenience would be new in the rebuttal. (2) he offers no discernable criterion by which to achieve convenience. As such, he has a very nebulous framework that lacks any clear definition or meaning and simply consists of a broad concept of achieving 'convenience' which he also fails to define. He also defines 'friends' and 'detained' which is curious to me seeing as these words are not in the resolution and have no clear consequence in the debate. I offer the alternative standard of respect for parental authority. You prefer this standard: (1) because it relates directly to the resolution because it deals with the wants of parents vs. the wants of children. (2) because it is in accordance with societal norms and viewed as proper by society as a whole. (3) because children are not fully cognitively developed and are less capable of making informed, unbiased decisions.[1] Even if you do not accept this standard you still vote CON on presumption because PRO does not provide any standard by which to weigh the round, nor does he ever link his arguments (such as texting at church) to convenience, so he hasn't met his burden of proof. ::Contention:: My sole contention is that PRO should respect his parent's decision that he is not yet capable of owning a cell phone. I am sure that PRO's parents have multiple reasons for disallowing his purchase of a phone. PRO alludes to a few of them: 1. PRO is not sufficiently responsible to own a phone. He himself writes, "My mother is always becoming frustrated with me for not telling her where I am going when I am out of the house." This shows a clear lack of responsibility on PRO's part. I do not own a phone either, and might be the only person in my grade who can say that. I, almost on a daily basis, am out of the house and must contact my parents. It is never hard to find a way to communicate and PRO would find, should he ask, that many people are willing to lend him their cellphone for a few minutes. I have never had any trouble in acquiring a cell phone on short notice when I need to contact my parents, and this happens quite often. PRO's habit of failing to communicate his location to his parents shows a lack of responsibility that would lead one to conclude that he shouldn't own a phone, not that he should. 2. PRO's ability to control himself, should he own a phone, is clearly suspect. He confesses, "My parents believe that I would text during certain events such as religious gatherings, public school, and family gatherings where they prefer a tranquil and participative environment." I don't know PRO personally, but I am sure his parents know him well enough to draw logical conclusions about him. If they believe that he would text at 'certain events' then I am inclined to believe them. PRO says that there is a disincentive to text in school from potential detention of the device, but I would argue that this is empirically denied. I see people texting on a regular basis. It is quite easy to conceal from teachers and confiscation by authorities is no real threat. Even when caught, many teachers are nice enough that they simply give a stern warning that "they will take it up next time they here it" which they never do. He says he would have no incentive to text because nobody else texts but this, too, is false. Many of my friends text each other back and forth throughout the day. It is a common practice, and I see it happen regularly. Because PRO's parents believe he is not capable of owning a phone (possibly for reasons outlined above) he should take their advice and not buy a phone. ::Rebuttal:: Contention 1: I have already covered this issue above. Cellphones are easily accessable to those who do not own them (myself being an example) simply by asking anyone nearby. The fact that PRO currently does not use this easy access to phones makes his claim that "having a cell phone would provide a convenient way to inform parents of location" a bit skeptical. I doubt that he would capitalize on his ability to use his own phone to contact his parents regularly when he clearly doesn't do so without one. Contention 2: A. I covered this above. Texting at school is quite prevalent and PRO will most likely fine that once he acquires a phone he will text during school rather frequently. B. I'm not particularly concerned with PRO's use of a phone at religious gatherings. He has provided a rebuttal to a point that I don't plan to pursue. Contention 3: This is not a point for his case. This is, again, a rebuttal to an argument that I'm not making. Contention 4: "While getting a low wage job may be seen as an obstruction to other activities, it can teach responsibility and educate an individual in the subject of financial, economic, and overall often required life experience/knowledge." This benefit is entirely non-unique. PRO will find that not owning a cell phone does not preclude him from having a job. He will, infact, find that should he own a cellphone the profit margin from said job would decrease significantly. [1] http://www.zerotothree.org...