My view is that teenagers (13+) should have unlimited, but monitored access to the internet.

By
monitored, I mean that parents can view activity for anything dangerous/illegal, but beside from
that, they are allowed to freely browse.

I will let my opponent begin the debate.

CON
Unlimited (from Random House Dictionary): unrestricted, without any qualification or exception;
unconditional [1]

I negate by showing that teenagers should have access to computers/internet, but parents should
have the right to place limits, conditions, and restrictions on that access.

Types of limits:

1. Time

Teenagers need to learn good time management skills, and parents can help teach them these
skills by requiring that certain time periods be designated "homework time" and certain time
periods be designated "free time." Otherwise, teenagers develop something called "continuous
partial attention," which is a habit whereby someone does work, while also performing other tasks
(such as online chat or social networking), without ever devoting their full attention to either task.
[2] This is a terrible habit to develop, and it causes work quality to greatly suffer.

In addition, there are physical worries in regards to too much computer use, such as carpel tunnel,
eye problems, and even death (a girl died due to dehydration in China playing World of Warcraft for
48 hours straight). Parents should be able to enforce time limits to teach children moderation.

2. Content

Parents should have the right to prevent their teenagers (13+) from viewing pornography, for
example. They should be allowed to install content filtering programs on their children's
computers. They should be allowed to restrict certain websites (like Facebook) during homework
time. And parents should have the right to prevent children from downloading music and movies
illegally, since the parents are the ones who would be liable in any lawsuit filed by the RIAA or
MPAA.

3. Conditions

Parents should have the right to restrict computer use as a punishment/incentive. If a parent
threatened "take out the garbage or no video games for a week," and you affirm the resolution,
parents would lose all their authority because children would be guaranteed unlimited computer
access by law. If children are given unlimited computer access, disciplinary issues could arise.
Being sent to your room certainly isn't as bad if you're given unlimited computer access during the
punishment.

4. Child molesters

Parents should have the right to ensure that children are not sharing too much personal
information online, such as their home address. Molesters often use Myspace or Facebook to find
an attractive victim and then use personal information the child has shared, such as a home
address, to track the child down. [3]

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2] http://www.businessweek.com...

[3] http://childsafetips.abouttips.com...
Report this Argument

PRO
As I stated in Round One, the child will have had previous instruction in good habits on the internet
from their parents, as limits could be placed pre-age-13. The parents will be able to teach the child
internet safety and time management such that when the parents decide they are mature enough
to venture out on the internet on their own, they will understand enough to not deal with
potentially dangerous sites or people.

In my argument, I stated that the children would have unrestricted access to the internet, however,
if the parent believes that they are not getting important things done such as homework, they can
make sure the child will get their homework done before using the computer, and that will not
interfere with my "unlimited access" argument.

Being a teenager myself, I understand the possible side effects of having unrestricted access to the
internet, like as you stated, not being able to concentrate, but in the past, I have still been able to
complete any school assignments and sustain straight A's in all of my classes.

As with social networking sites, the child will be assumed to have knowledge of how to use the
internet safely. The child will have been taught not to share any personal information and use
proper privacy settings. Filtering sites "during homework time" won't be necessary as the parent
could see that the homework gets done prior to access to the computer.

Accessing pornography will not be affected, as state laws will still require a person to be over a
certain age to be able to view such material.

Finally, When I say "unlimited", I mean unlimited access to the internet while they are using a
computer or other internet-enabled device. Parents will still have the authority to punish a child by

not letting them use a computer, and/or force them to get off a computer unconditionally. However,
when they are using a computer or internet-enabled device, they will not be restricted on content
accessible.

Con

Responding to my opponent's recent round:

My opponent says: "As I stated in Round One, the child will have had previous instruction in good
habits on the internet from their parents"

This was not stated in round 1. However, my response is that you cannot assume that all children
will have been taught perfect time management skills, how to use moderation, and how to avoid
sharing too much personal information by age 13. Age 14 is when most students enter high school,
when the workload increases to the point where they are forced to learn good time management
(called a "teachable moment"). There may not have been enough teachable moments by age 13
for all children to learn all the necessary skills.

Secondly, it is a well-established fact that kids (especially teenagers) do not always do what their
parents tell them. They often need constant reminders/reinforcement and don't learn things the
first time they are told.

My opponent says: "if the parent believes that they are not getting important things done such as
homework, they can make sure the child will get their homework done before using the computer."
This is a form of restriction, specifically the restriction that "you may not use the computer until
your homework is done." Finishing homework is a "condition" that must be fulfilled before
computer access is allowed. I refer everyone back to my definition, that "unlimited" means
"unconditional," i.e. lacking any conditions on use.

My opponent points out that he is a teenager with straight A's. However, he has yet to prove in this

round that his parents placed absolutely no restrictions on his internet use. Even if my opponent
could prove this, his argument is still a logical fallacy: generalizing from too small a sample size.
Just because one person has unlimited internet access and straight A's doesn't mean every person
is the world can do the same.

My opponent claims that "the child will be assumed to have knowledge of how to use the internet
safely." However, children do not use the internet responsibly now. "In a 2006 survey conducted by
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Cox Communications, fourteen percent
(14%) of children have actually met face-to-face with a person the child had known only online."
[1]

My opponent claims that children cannot access pornography because of state laws requiring that
they be 18. However, most pornography websites use an honor system that has two links: "click
this link to enter (18 and above)" and "click this link to leave (under 18)." Children quickly figure
out that they can simply click the "I'm over 18" link in order to access pornography. The honor
system doesn't work.

My opponent's last argument comes once again from his ignoring my definition. Unlimited means
unconditional, lacking any and all restrictions. This would include punishments.

[1] http://www.dshs.state.tx.us...
Report this Argument

Pro

If this took effect, parents would understand that the years pre-age-13 would be the time for them
to learn good computer habits. Currently, parents do not enforce correct internet usage because
they restrict it as a whole. If it was unlimited, parents would know that they should teach their
children how to use the internet safely, which would result in a better understanding of the

internet, unlike many children who spend their days trolling the internet and/or putting themselves
in danger without understanding the consequences.

My opponent says: "...it is a well-established fact that kids (especially teenagers) do not always do
what their parents tell them." I agree with this argument, however, I believe that the less
restrictions that are put on children, the more cooperative they become. If a parent is loose and
lets their children do things on their own, they will 1) become more independent, and 2) have the
children become more cooperative, because they are not actively being restricted. If limitations are
constantly being placed on a child, a child will learn to dislike the aforementioned restrictions. But
if few limitations are being placed, the child will be more willing to abide when one comes along.

Perhaps I made a mistake when I began this debate. I meant to say that children should have
unlimited use of the INTERNET. By unlimited, I mean that there are no restrictions placed on the
activities they take on when browsing the internet. If parents feel the need to restrict usage of the
computer, they can, but when the child is using computer, they can have unlimited access to the
internet and the content on it.

I understand that a child can click "I'm over 18", and enter a pornographic site, but the child will be
breaking a law. This is no different from saying that if there is a law for stealing, then I can walk
into a store and take a computer without paying for it. The former law is much easier to break, but
it is still a law that is being broken.

My opponent repeatedly states that the definition of unlimited is "unconditional, lacking any and all
restrictions". However, people have different opinions about what something can mean, and in my
mind, the meaning can be altered to fit a point of view.

My point of view, as I've stated a few times before, is that access of the INTERNET should be
unlimited, which means that children are free to view whatever content they would like and
partake in any activities that are legal when they are browsing, but parents still have the final call

over how they use the computer. However, please keep in mind that a mature child will understand
his/her responsibilities and know when it is time to get off. They won't spend all night browsing.
They will understand limits.

Con

Responding to my opponent's recent round:

He says that a new law giving teenagers unlimited computer/internet access would cause parents
to change their approach. If this were true, it should have already happened. I'm assuming 100% of
parents know that there are child molesters out there and 100% don't want their children
molested. Yet still 14% of children decide to physically meet with a "stranger" who they met online.
Children make bad decisions and need to be monitored. Having one chat with a child is not enough
for lasting change.

My opponent points out that being overly restrictive as a parent is bad. This, however, does not
prove that parents should impose NO restrictions at all on their children. In addition, each parent
should decide how restrictive they want to be, knowing full well that their teenager might resent
them if they impose too many restrictions on them. The government does not have the right to
legislate and micro-manage parenting decisions.

My opponent says: "Perhaps I made a mistake when I began this debate." I agree that he likely did
make a mistake when drafting the topic. However, the instigator should not have the right to
change the topic halfway through the debate. My opponent is stuck with the topic he originally
drafted, which states that teenagers should have NO restrictions on their internet/computer use.

Pornography:

One form of "limit" is a type of computer software that blocks certain sites, like known porn sites
(such as "dot xxx" sites) and chat rooms known to be frequented by sex offenders. Unlimited

access would ban parents from installing such "parental control" software on their child's computer.

My opponent says: "meaning can be altered to fit a point of view." The only way to have
predictable debates is to use a dictionary to find the most common usage for a word. Two people
cannot debate each other if they are both relying on subjective definitions of what the topic means
to them. I provided a dictionary definition of "unlimited."

My opponent does not answer my most important argument: parents should have the right to ban
children from illegally downloading on the internet, because if the RIAA (music industry) or MPAA
(movie industry) catches the child, they will be suing the parents (not the child) and will go after
the parents' money (not the child's meager piggy bank).

My other key argument is that parents should have the right to say "no computer games or
Facebook until you finish your homework." Unlimited computer/internet access would not allow
such a restriction to be placed upon children. Children will thus not learn good time management
skills.
Report this Argument

Pro

I agree that absolutely no restrictions on children is bad, but as I've mentioned before, the limits
won't be removed from the children until they reach the age of 13. Before this time, the parent will
make sure the child realizes that there are many bad people out there, and they should be careful.
My opponent says that "children make bad decisions and need to be monitored." This is true,
however, the child would make better decisions if they were exposed to the internet more and saw
how some people make bad decisions (such as trolling) and how the community treats them. And
please keep in mind that these are teenagers who are expected to be mature. These are not just
"children" who are still in elementary school. These are teenagers that are about to go into high
school.

There's no doubt the internet will increase your maturity level. I consider myself to be very
knowledgeable for my age. This is likely a result of my exposure to the internet, an unlimited
source of information. That being said, I understand different teenagers might function in different
ways, and that the internet might not help them as it did with me.

My opponent states that "unlimited access would ban parents from installing ... 'parental control'
software on their child's computer." If a child is responsible, such software should not be necessary.

As with downloading illegal material, the child should understand that committing such act is, in
fact, a crime. I agree that children should not be partaking in this act, however, just because a
child is doing it, it doesn't make it right for an adult to do it. You are referring to children as if they
were different, but please keep in mind that adults are just as capable of doing so, and it is not any
less illegal for a child to do so. I understand that an adult would be responsible for their own
actions, and a child's parent would be responsible for the child's actions, but either way, it is an act
of crime and is the same as going to a store and stealing a disc, and shouldn't be done in the first
place.

A responsible child will understand their duties to do homework. Plus, there's only so much a
person can do on the internet. A child will likely only use a few sites, and will get bored after a
while. There's always time to do homework, and a responsible child will get it done in time sooner
or later. Letting a child do homework whenever they feel like it will actually increase productivity,
by cutting down on procrastination.

Our world is changing. We are in the information age. In the future, the world will be centered
around technology even more so than it is today. In the future, technological ability will be what
really matters. Children need to be exposed to this technology so they will be able to achieve
greater things when they get older. We need to help the next generation be tech-savvy because
technology is what the future will hold.

Con

Responding to my opponent's recent round:

My opponent says: "I agree that absolutely no restrictions on children is bad." I consider this
effectively conceding the round since "unlimited" means no restrictions.

My opponent keeps arguing that children of 13 are responsible enough to make all of their own
decisions, even though 14% of them still decide to physically meet with strangers they met online.
In addition, if children are responsible enough at 13 to make all their own decisions (without their
parents), why not make the drinking age 13, the smoking age 13, and allow 13 year olds to decide
whether or not they want to continue attending school (instead of making it mandatory)? Why not
let 13 year olds decide to join the military and why not let 13 year olds decide to get married
(without parental approval)? Why not make the age of (sexual) consent 13? Society obviously
acknowledges that 13 year olds are not old enough to make all of the right decisions, without
parental oversight.

My opponent claims the internet increases maturity level. His only evidence is himself. Many
teenagers actually use the internet in immature ways: to Photoshop and post obscene photos, to
make "gay" jokes with their friends, to bully other children, etc. His experience cannot be
generalized to everyone.

My opponent points out that adults can also choose to download illegally. However, if an adult
downloads illegal content, the adult is liable if sued. If a child downloads illegally, the parents are
liable if sued. Because the child's actions (illegally downloading a movie/music) could hurt the
parents (a lawsuit costing millions of dollars), the parents should have a right to limit the child's
internet use in this regard.

My opponent claims: "Letting a child do homework whenever they feel like it will actually increase

productivity, by cutting down on procrastination." Actually, in my personal experience working with

high school students, students who are allowed unlimited access to Facebook are the ones who are
most likely to turn their assignments in late and to procrastinate until the last minute. Teenagers
need their parents to help them learn time management skills. My opponent claims that teenagers
will get bored with the internet, but I've seen high schoolers spend 8 hours straight on Facebook
without getting bored. Parents need the right to say: "do your homework first."

My opponent says that children need to learn technology. I agree. But in moderation, allowing
parents to set reasonable limitations on their internet/computer use. Taking all authority over
computers/internet away from parents and giving it to teenagers is like letting the mental patients
run the asylum.

Reject my opponent's tyrannical attempt to usurp parental authority. Vote Con.