Question: Is cell phone radiation safe?

Title: They can cause cancer Content: We all know that radiation is bad for us. Yet we fail to recognise the fact that mobile phones are using radiation in order to make contact with another station. Research has shown [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] that higher frequencies of radiation are given out by a phone the further away it is from a base station; those who live further away from these base station and use mobile phones are more likely to develop cancer. This research shows that cell phones are in fact not safe; they cause a disease which we are still very much in ignorance over how to cure.

Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: Hello, I hope you have fun debating this topic with me!This first round is just about putting your idea forward and stating what you're going to be talking about, so it's basically an introduction. Don't comment any facts or data or your arguments in general. This is just to give an opinion about the topic then in rounds 2, 3 and 4 you can do your reasons.I strongly believe that cell phone radiation is not safe for humans of any age. So cell phone usage should be reduced.I hope you enjoy debating this important topic with me, future opponent, and may the debate begin!

Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: Well actually cell phone and other mobile devices emit radiofrequency energy which is a type of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be categorised as ionizing and non-ionizing. Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer and brain tumours. So actually cell phone radiation can have a lot of unwanted side effects and circumstances if taken in large amounts.

Title: They actually reduce the chances of brain tumours. Content: Quite the contrary to the suggestion that cell phones can cause harm to the brain via radiation, some research has shown the opposite to be true[[Joachim Schuz et al. "Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort," Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dec. 2006]]. The radiation from mobile phones has been shown to reduce the chances of the user developing glioma and meningioma.

Title: cell phone use good or bad state your debate Content: Phones are useful in some cases, but they also can cause cancer from radiation. Here are some links: www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.org... http://www.nydailynews.com... www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/cell_phones._FAQ.html In my first argument, I will only be going over cancer. I apologize for this shortened argument, but I plan to use a different argument in every round. I look forward to your response.

Title: the increase personal safety Content: Whilst people may be focusing on the negative effects that radiation may or may not have, there is also the aspect of personal safety. People no longer have to find a phone booth to make an emergency call. People no longer have to have change on them to use that phone box. Mobile phones have saved thousands of lives. With most people having one, if you are out shopping and an accident occurs, you know that there will be many people around who within a matter of seconds would be able to call the police, an ambulance or a fireman depending on what the situation was. This is a speedier way to handle an emergency and the time saved will have already saved thousands of lives. This is compared to no recorded deaths for the radiation caused by mobile phones.

Title: Every child should have a mobile phone. (Junior) Content: Mobile phones make sure that we are safe

Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: What you are saying about is cell phones related to humans.The topic is whether it is good for children.A child is a human between the stages of birth and puberty.The brain of a child is more prone to the bad effects of radiation.Please look these and confirm that they are very bad for children. http://healthychild.org... http://www.earthcalm.com... http://www.internationalparentingassociation.org... So from these websites we can confirm a fact that they are bad for children.The mobiles not only emit radiation during calls.A large amount of radiation is also emitted during the other activities by these cell phones.Children usually gets addicted to these and so the effect of these mobile phones in the children is maximum. So i urge the voters to be in the pro side in this debate. I am also thanking my con side for having a wonderful debate with me.........

Title: Cell Phones Are Dangerous Content: \\\Cell phones are not dangerous because they are made of lint/// Most cell phones look like this: http://weblogs.cltv.com... as you can see the phone is made out of metal or shiny plastic, and not lint. \\\I would also like to point out my opponents cell phone does not exist./// This is irrelevant. It does exist because to post this argument I had to check on the mobile web to see if you had posted. ===Point=== I. Causes cancer * Cellular telephones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy (radio waves), which is a form of radiation that is under investigation for its effects on the human body (1). * Cellular telephone technology emerged in Europe in the 1980s but did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s. The technology is rapidly changing, so there are few long-term studies of the effects of RF energy from cellular telephones on the human body (1). * The number of cellular telephone users has increased rapidly. As of December 2008, there were more than 270 million subscribers to cellular telephone service in the United States, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. This is an increase from 110 million users in 2000 and 208 million users in 2005. Because cell phones are held near the head when in use, therefore, in theory they may cause: Malignant (cancerous) brain tumors such as gliomas Non-cancerous tumors of the brain such as meningiomas Non-cancerous tumors of the nerve connecting the brain to the ear (acoustic neuromas) Non-cancerous tumors of the salivary glands

Title: Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates... Content: Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The latest research says that mobile phones do not damage brain cells. Even those earlier studies that suggested there might be a problem thought that people would have to use a cell phone for hours a day for there to be an effect. It is true that there is no 100% proof mobile phones are safe to use, but that is true of any scientific study.

Title: mobile phones are a curse for todays youth Content: "Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents." -->Which if true, is the reason why many states and countries are implementing a hands-free rule when driving. Only blue tooth headsets will be allowed, to allow the driver to pay more attention to driving his/her car. ".A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world." --> A claim that is not backed up with a link or a reference to verify such a claim. As I have shown in my previous round, studies of up to 10 years show minimal to no cancer effects from cell phone usage. ~Conclusion~ No references and 3 forfeited rounds should obligate a vote for Con. My opponent has failed to show how cell phones are the curse for today's youth, and even dropped one of his points in the beginning.

Title: Should we use cell phones in school Content: There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people's brains. Because children's brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks – the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.

Title: Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates... Content: There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people’s brains. Because children’s brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks – the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.

Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: Yes, scientists might say that the radio frequency the user receives is not enough to cause any harm to them, but the average person uses their mobile phone for more than 5 hours per day. Think about how much radio frequency your body absorbs during those 5 hours! But it's not just that, majority of people sleep with their phones on their nightstand, turned on and receiving wifi, those are another minimum 7 hours of your body receiving more radio frequency plus carrying it around in your purse or pocket all day. Basically you could be with your phone for the whole 24 hours of a day. I derived this information from a reliable website. Even if you don't use a cell phone for hours each day, research by leading brain imaging researcher Nora D. Volkow, MD of the National Institutes of Health, revealed that after just 50 minutes of cell phone exposure, the emitted radiation increases brain cell activity in the region closest to the cell phone antenna. From: https://articles.mercola.com... We keep on hearing that cell phone radiation has NOTHING to do with brain tumours, cancers, etc. but people think and say this because the damage from cell phone exposure can take many years to surface. There are rarely any initial symptoms, taking for example smoking causing lung cancer, it takes about three to six months for most lung cancers to double their size. Therefore, it could take several years for a typical lung cancer to reach a size at which it could be diagnosed on a chest X-ray. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: PRO claims that I am referring to humans. Is PRO claiming that children are not human? PRO provided no sources for his definition of child. Therefore my definition from Round 1 stands - a young person under age 18. Thus PRO'S argument must include anyone under 18. Again PRO ignored my argument concerning the necessity of phones in a digital age. He concedes them. My opponent provided links but did not support them with arguments. I reaffirm my position. The National Institute of Environmental Health Science states that there is no evidence to link "cell phone use with any adverse health problems" [1]. PRO also provided no proof that radiation is emitted by other activities. We can discount this claim. Even if the radiation was harmful, which I have proven there is no evidence to suggest, PRO is still arguing that no one under 18 should have a phone. I thank PRO for a great debate and urge you to vote CON! [1] http://www.niehs.nih.gov...

Title: legalise the use of cell phones in cars Content: Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard

Title: Children Should not be Allowed to Own Smart Phones Until They are in Their Mid Teens (15-16 y/o) Content: This round is ONLY for defence and conclusions.1)"Are you not aware that many things in are every day life emit radiation?"How many of those things do you carry with yourself which are constantly in contact with your body, with just some clothe layers in between? X rays are harmful for the body to some extent. Air won't have so much radiation, it will be basically negligible. The sun gives of way more radiation than a phone. Absolutely right. But all of that radiation doest not reach to us. It is a small fraction. And even that fraction does harm like SKIN CANCER if you spend too long in it, GUESS WHAT A DEVICE IN YOUR BREAST POCKET CONSTANTLY EMITING RADIATIONS BECAUSE IT HAS TO CONNECT TO THE TOWERS AND WIFI AND WHAT NOT WILL DO. 2) "toddlers cannot participate in any official sport till the age of 6" Physical development doesn't need 'official' games. It requires baby games like tickling the kid, exercising his body, etc. And why did you choose the age 6? Official means - "having the approval or authorization of an authority or public body" The games little kids play are not unofficial. They are not offending anyone by playing copycat with their parents. "Children will also by natural run around and play, the phone will not provide an obstacle for the children if the parents manage it properly" They won't sit all day with the phones. But something like a smart phone is addictive for a small kid. Who hasn't seen videos on youtube, of adorable babies playing on a smart phone, and when it is taken from them, they start crying. Brain development at childhood is not SUCH a big problem that something like a smart phone is needed to help. Babies' brains used to develop just as well when smart phones were not given away so carelessly to them, assuming that it is 'helping'.3) "Procrastination can be controlled by the parent and its there responsibility to dictate phone time."Easier said than done. When it comes to young teenagers, they can just sneak the smart phone out at night. Even if parents give a fixed time, it's hard for me to believe that more than 10% of those people at an age that humans tend to be the most stubborn at, will follow it. It is also not efficient for the parents to keep a check on the kid ALL the time since they have their own lives to deal with too.4) "Books can be used yes, but googling can allow you to scroll through the information faster and become more multi perspective."Know about the Google effect? The Google effect, also called digital amnesia, is the tendency to forget information that can be found readily online. According to the first study about the Google effect people are less likely to remember certain details they believe will be accessible online.Now this might sound okay-ish to you, but to me, it sounds pretty bad. It is just dampening, or more suitably, destroying the brain's capabilities. Your brain thinks, "I can look this up the internet without wasting much energy, no need to remember it then" And, a student should not be dealing with such a problem. It will interfere with performance at school. And even in their future, they might be in one of the vast list of jobs that require you to remember many things, from school, from recent affairs, etc. Looking it up the internet every time would be highly inefficient, the brain has to be trained to do good, not be lazy.5)Writing down to practice and reading from a book is the safest way to study. The apps are designed to help, not to be depended upon. 6)"So you make the ignorant claim that you threw your phone out because of negative affects and it should be enforced on other individuals?"Quoting an incident does not mean trying to enforce it on others according to my senses."Lets look at any device, a computer" " So are you also saying that teenagers shouldn't have computers?"If you read my rebuttals, you should know I already have talked why computers are better than phones and won't cause as much harm. It is quite easy to understand why spending (wasting) loads of time on a small lightweight phone is far easier than on a relatively large computer.7)"by the age of 14 most parents have responded that it was okay for there children to watch pornography"Okay this 'fact' is completely absurd. Everything from 'by the age of 14' to 'MOST parents' sounds a bit too farfetched. The source you mentioned speaks about effects of pornography on a couple. We are most definitely NOT talking about effects of porn on relationships here. Most parents would not want their kids to be watching such a thing, because - They are too naive and can get themselves into trouble. Once you are legal age, then you decide whether you want something like that, or stay a good 100 feet away. But we are talking about people less than 16 y/o.8)"I will state that a simple flip phone will be bad for business" The debate topic is whether children should be allowed smart phones or not, NOT how it affects business of the sellers.So, smartphones are bad for kids

Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: (OK so now this is the fourth and final debating round, first of all good luck to my opponent, you have done really well and your information has been really well researched. :) Now I will move away from the whole 'cancer and tumour' subheading as we have discussed that a bit too much. In my fourth and last point I will be talking about additional health risks (no, not cancer) cell phone radiation causes the body in both genders. These are sleep quality, baby development and pacemaker functioning. I will start by explaining how it affects sleep quality. It doesn't just harm your eyes from the powerful light phones emit but can also cause insomnia, headaches and confusion. The radiation may also disrupt production of the hormone melatonin, which controls your body"s internal rhythms. Baby Development: How it is affected. The national public awareness campaign, called the BabySafe Project, is being coordinated by Grassroots Environmental Education and Environmental Health Trust, and is based on independent scientific research linking exposure to wireless radiation from cell phones during pregnancy to neurological and behavioral problems in offspring that resemble Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children. Finally, how cell phone radiation affects pacemakers. For those of you who don't know what a pacemaker is, it is a small machine that helps people with heart conditions like irregular heartbeat and heart block. A pacemaker is a device that gives off electrical impulses to your heart. These make your heart beat more regularly. It consists of a battery, a tiny computer and a generator in a thin metal box, along with wires that connect the pacemaker to your heart. Now for a cell phone's radiation to affect this is a gigantic danger to the person. If it makes the pacemaker suddenly stop working by the cell phone's radiation interfering with the pacemaker's signal it can have even fatal results. The ways they interfere are; -Stopping the pacemaker from delivering the stimulating pulses that regulate the heart's rhythm -Causing the pacemaker to deliver the pulses irregularly -Causing the pacemaker to ignore the heart's own rhythm and deliver pulses at a fixed rate Like I said, this can have even FATAL impacts on the user. So now after all the reasons I have given about how cell phone radiation affects humans, you must be on my side by believing that cell phone radiation is not good for humans. My reasons were, that cell phone radiation can have an impact on brain cancer and tumours, it affects baby development, it affects sleep quality and interferes with pacemakers. These are my reasons why I STRONGLY believe that cell phone radiation is a big NO. Thank you :)

Title: mobile phones are a curse for todays youth Content: Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents.A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world.

Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: My opponent provided no other definition of child. Therefore we must conclude that he agrees with me that nobody under 18 should own a cell phone or he has failed in his burden of proof. My opponent clearly did not examine my source. The National Cancer Institute is far more reliable than a YouTube video. However, I shall better explain it here. According to the NCI, cell phones emit "radiofrequency energy, a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation" [1] which, yes, may be absorbed by tissues near the ear. Now, ionizing radiation has been shown to increase the risk of cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, like phones, has not. Again, the NCI states that "radiofrequency energy...does not cause DNA damage in cells" and has not been found to "cause cancer in animals" or enhance cancer-causing effects [1]. Thus we cannot conclude cell phones cause cancer. PRO dropped my communication point; please extend it, and vote CON! [1] http://www.cancer.gov...

Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: It is indeed a true fact that mobiles can cause cancers.When we place a mobile phone near a speaker and make a call to it we may be able to hear a specific sound.This is caused due to radiation..The radiation of the mobiles can pop a popcorn as shown in the following video. Now from this we have understood that mobiles causes radiation.Next is to know whether they are harmful or not to us.We can see that both pop corn and speakers get affected by this radiation.The same effect happens on human beings.The radiation can cause damage to the cells which are nearer to the mobiles while calling.This gets spread from cells to cells and finally will lead to a great effect in humans.If the students are given the permission to own mobiles they would go on calling and calling their friends.What the con said here was there is no problem in using phones.But it indeed has a great effect if children use it for long hours.So they are bad for children........

Title: Cell Phones Are Dangerous Content: Cell phones are not dangerous because they are made of lint.. therefore they are of no harm to anyone.. I would also like to point out my opponents cell phone does not exist.

Title: The use of a mobile phone requires a social life. Content: Studies continue to emphatically expose the adverse effects of cell phone radiation; without refutation. [[http://www.truthaboutabs.com/cell-phone-damages-crotch.html]] Tell that to all those crack callers I keep getting missed calls from. Badgering strangers or not is possible on both the internet and on a mobile. The difference is privacy policies and Cyber-laws protect the average internet browser; whereas, there are no protections for those being harassed on their cellphone. And no I've tried the add to screen list option; the calls still come but the phone doesn't ring and calls I 'do' want to receive are impeded. all you need is a phone number; some creeps even dial in random numbers and then wait and see who picks up. Cell phones are even more versatile than public payphones for those who change Sims often; so they don't worry about call tracing. This is why cellphones are central to crime and terrorism. Demo: Get disposable phone; insert disposable Sim Call anyone from anywhere.(fellow criminals, stalker target, person to blackmail etc) Give phone to complete stranger or throw it in a trash bin; from which any random person can pick it up. Avoid being traced.

Title: Cell Phones Are Dangerous Content: Resolved that cell phones are dangerous. Please state points why cell phones are not dangerous.

Title: Children Should not be Allowed to Own Smart Phones Until They are in Their Mid Teens (15-16 y/o) Content: "Radiations being at number one. When you are giving that innocent toddler a smart phone, you are actually giving him/her a radiation emitting box of terror." Are you not aware that many things in are every day life emit radiation? Processed foods, medical xrays and even air. If you walk outside in an urban environment you will soak in just as much radiation as you would being on your phone. Even are sun gives off MORE radiation than a cell phone, this argument is not concerning as the radiation a cell phone emits is VERY little in comparison to objects in our everyday lives. http://www.livescience.com... "Substituting physical activities and human interactions with smart phones would never do good" Bear in mind that a toddler is between the age of 0 and 5, and toddlers cannot participate in any official sport till the age of 6. Children will also by natural run around and play, the phone will not provide an obstacle for the children if the parents manage it properly. Children can also learn a lot from IPad applications, I work in the special needs department at my school and we give them phones/ipads to give them educational and brain games. This only helps there social interaction and makes them learn something new. "Most people, CAN NOT multitask. Switching between two tasks is something that takes up a lot of energy, especially when the task which needs to be switched from is an addiction" Procrastination can be controlled by the parent and its there responsibility to dictate phone time. Banning phone use will negate a lot of opportunities a lot of present day applications use. Education brain games can be crucial and can help a lot of developing kids, as technology if used properly will make people smarter. Books can be used yes, but googling can allow you to scroll through the information faster and become more multi perspective. http://www.usatoday.com... "The age 5 - 10 involves stuff like brain development, learning social skills, learning important values amongst family and friends, starting to know which field best matches with your interests " In the article above the school uses smart phones to help kids with brain stimulating activities, it can also provide benefits to many children as well, as it can help them learn a wider array of topics. Learning important values among family members and friends will come through social interaction. Regardless if you have a phone or not, you will be able to develop social skills as elementary schools will enforce it. Family values do not correlate to whether someone has a phone or not, I actually do not see how you can even find that compatible. Family values should be taught by the family members, and I was able to learn and adapt to my family's expectations even getting a phone at the age of 10. "AGE 10 - 15 ('Tweenagers') Apart from the health problems and lack in social skills, the problems which prevail more in this age group are things like increased 'FOMO' (Fear of missing out), sleep disruption, procrastination and increased stress (I had a smart phone for a week when I was in my 'tweens' and I gave it back myself, because I noticed, IN JUST ONE WEEK, how my life was being affected in a bad way from it!) " So you make the ignorant claim that you threw your phone out because of negative affects and it should be enforced on other individuals? Lets look at any device, a computer. If you're on the computer for to long, the same affects will develop. Being on the computer will disrupt sleep, make you procrastinate and increase your stress. However phones have also debunked my stress because I use it to communicate with friends, talk to family members from faraway lands and use it to learn. A flip phone will prevent you from communicating from long distance relatives as well, unless you want to pay extra money. So are you also saying that teenagers shouldn't have computers? "Moreover, these kids are more likely to be opened up to things they should not be watching or doing (pornography, etc.). " I don't know what household you grew up in, but by the age of 14 most parents have responded that it was okay for there children to watch pornography, unless you align yourself with a different religion. It actually has a lot of benefits and can help kids understand what it really is. You may be saying it puts them in a different mindset, but they will be brought into the mindset regardless as teenagers and their surroundings, if you truly dislike that mentality, send your kid to a private school. http://sexuality.about.com... In your last argument, I will state that a simple flip phone will be bad for business. No one wants to manufacture them and its a waste of money, all in all a cell phone an is unconstitutional and should be left by the parent. I will conclude there

Title: Mobile Phones Used by Children Content: Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates...

Title: the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved Content: INTERPHONE [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] completed a study based upon phone use and brain tumours. They specifically found no correlation between the two phenomenon. Given that hand held phones are held to the ear with the antennae near the brain, surely this is where most of the damage would be caused. Given this, it is high time that we stopped scaring ourselves out of using technology and move forward with it

Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: I'd like to welcome my opponent and extend my hope for a great debate! The Merriam-Webster Dictionary vaguely defines 'child' as "a young person" or "a person not yet of age" [1]. In the United States, 'of age' generally refers to age 18, so my opponent is arguing against anyone younger than 18 having a cell phone. It is his burden of proof to provide a specific age for usage. He claims that phones cause radiation leading to cancer. However, as the National Cancer Institute reports, "studies...have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves" and more [2]. Thus my opponent's claim is false. Cell phone use connects children to their friends and families. They are sources of communication and entertainment and, in this technological era, are essential. Thus I must urge you to vote CON in this debate! [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.cancer.gov...

Title: legalise the use of cell phones in cars Content: Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous

Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: That is like trying to overdose on weed. It will take around 100,000 puffs in less than a half an hour to be dangerous. The amounts are so small, no effects really is going to be done. I recieved this from an official website. "The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy. It has been suggested that radiofrequency energy might affect glucose metabolism, but two small studies that examined brain glucose metabolism after use of a cell phone showed inconsistent results. Whereas one study showed increased glucose metabolism in the region of the brain close to the antenna compared with tissues on the opposite side of the brain (2), the other study (3) found reduced glucose metabolism on the side of the brain where the phone was used. Another study investigated whether exposure to the radiofrequency energy from cell phones affects the flow of blood in the brain and found no evidence of such an effect (4). The authors of these studies noted that the results are preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism are still unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (5). Some contributing factors include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status." Source: https://www.cancer.gov...

Title: Cell phone usage is a leading cause of brain cancer. Content: I will use two arguments for this debate1) It is still disputed whether or not cell phones cause brain cancer2) Something cannot be the leading cause of brain cancer if it does not cause it, or if it is simply not the LEADING cause1) There have been countless studies trying to see if cell phones do cause brain cancer.... And there is very conflicting evidence showing any correlation between cell phone use and brain cancer. Sources below all show how cell phones are not linked to brain cancer"In the largest study yet of its kind, Danish researchers have found no correlation between use of cellphones and risk for brain tumors in adults."http://www.theblaze.com..."Tumor rates in northern European countries have remained steady through 2008 despite widespread cell phone use"http://www.mobiledia.com..."One of the largest and longest studies on the subject finds no more brain tumors among people who had cell phones over 17 years than among people who had no cell phones."http://news.yahoo.com..."350,000 people ages 30 and older and found there was no difference in cancer rates between longtime cell phone "subscribers" and those who didn't have a phone,"http://health.usnews.com..."to date there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer."http://www.cancer.gov..."The research team analyzed the survey data and couldn't find any link between cell phone usage and brain tumors"http://gizmodo.com..."It's highly unlikely that cell phones cause cancer because they emit "non-ionizing radiation" which is very weak and doesn't really affect living cells"http://articles.businessinsider.com...;"A long-term study of Danish mobile phone use has unequivocally determined that there is no connection between mobile phone use and various cancers of the brain"http://www.itwire.com..."Further research has been published suggesting there is no link between mobile phones and brain cancer."http://www.bbc.co.uk..."In most studies patients with brain tumors do not report more cell phone use overall than the controls."http://www.cancer.org..."A new study has revealed that children and adolescents who use mobile phones are not at a statistically significant increased risk of brain cancer compared to their peers who do not use mobile phones."http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com..."Many experts agree that to date, there is no conclusive evidence that links cell-phone use to brain cancer"http://www.usaweekend.com...-"5 billion cell phone users globally, representing nearly three-quarters of the world's population. However, the incidence and mortality rate of brain and central nervous system cancers has remained virtually flat since 1987"http://abcnews.go.com...So the point is, Cell phones do not definitively cause Brain Cancer2) The second thing I want to address is the current list of leading causes of Brain cancer in no particular order - Exposure to radiation like nuclear power plant workers - Exposure/Use of Formaldehyde, - Exposure to Vinyl Chlorides that affects people who manufacture certain types of plastic - Exposure to Acrylonitrile that affects people who manufacture certain types of textiles and plastics - Studies thus far have not found an increased risk of brain tumors among people who use cell phones.http://www.medicinenet.com...http://cancer.emedtv.com...So cell phones are not proven to cause Brain cancer and as of right now it is most certainly not the leading cause of brain cancer.

Title: Banning cell phones in cars Content: Cell phone use in cars does not cause many accidents

Title: This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones. Content: So we've reached the end of our debate. Clearly there are speculations and concerns issued by many incuding parents, teachers, peadriticians and scientists in regards to our motion. I however still am subscribing to the belief that that the advantages for children to own smart phones outweigh the minor disadvantages that come with it. To sum up, my three points that have been taken into account of our debate are to promote the intellectual development of children ,parallel to The Children's Right, economic and financial reasons and lastly to assimilate the element of latest technology among children to mould technology-savvy generation. Now for my opponent, I am well aware of the fragility of children's biology and how they can be obsessed with smart phones. That's why I did mention parents' role in this matter earlier. They should always control the internet and calls usage by their children. Parents should always remind their children of the danger of phones-oriented radiation to them and make sure that at night when they are sleeping their smart phones are placed at a safe distance. Besides that, if inability to stay focus in class becomes a problem, simple , parents should take away their phones and keep them during school hours return to them after school. In a nutshell, parents should allow their children to own a smart phone. Bear in mind that everything if used excessively can be dangerous and that applies to this situation. With enough control and support by parents, I believe that children can benefit the best from having this wonderful piece of technology! That's all from me, thank you for your time! I really appreciate it. Ps: to con, radiation doesn't "'flow""' in blood vein. It penetrates through your clothes and if powerful enough ( with strong penetrating power) through your skin.

Title: This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones. Content: 1. Health an safety issues. A child's (say 5-13) brain absorbs 10x more radiation to the brain than adults. An older 'child' (15-18) may be more immune to radiation, but nevertheless, the 'child' will most likely sleep with the phone next to their heads, allowing 10 + or - hours of radiation streaming into the brain and genitalia, which could cause ADHD, autism, damaged reproduction systems, etc. 2. Distraction. You have already gone against this argument but let me expand. If the child took the phone to school, he would be focused on the phone and the new game he got rather than the teacher. His excuse would be "notes" or "the interactive textbook". And for older children, they would focus on the phones, instead of interacting with others. Most parent won't object to this, in today's culture. Exploring an smart phone not quite exploring technology. The creators of smart phones have made it extremely easy to navigate. Unless they were taking it apart, it's not really exploring technology. I believe there are alternatives to a technological education. One of the safest is a desktop, this also provides the parents with easier ways to make sure the child is doing what heshe is supposed to be doing. I suggest visiting this page for reasons why children should not have smartphones. It was also one of my sources. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Title: This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones. Content: I believe that children should not own smartphones because of the huge amount of radiation constantly 'penetrating' , the word my opponent would prefer me to use, the brain and other fragile body parts, and because most parents do not mind when and what their children use their phones for, and to those parents who do, I comend you.

Title: Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School Content: Although cell phones may be helpful in our everyday lives, it is also important that we keep them safe and schools must put this rule in place so that they are safe. Please vote. Thank you for the debate.

Title: Nuclear energy Content: Radiation around nuclear plants is well within safe limits

Title: should kid own phones with service Content: I will be arguing that children should not be allowed to possess phones with service. My opponent's first and only point regarded one's safety "in cases of emergencies or someone got hurt or sick or if you got lost or need help and stuff like that." However, one does not need a phone with service to contact the police department, 911. As part of the "Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999," all phones, with or without service, must be capable of calling 911 (S1).Studies suggest that cellphones are unhealthy for youths. They pose many healthy concerns which may impact them greatly in the future. For example, in a study published by the NRPB in December 2004, scientists found that there were indications that radiation from cellphones may damage DNA. A study from April 2004 shows a correlation between mobile phone use and auditory nerve tumors, and research in 2003 links cellphones to impaired brain function (S2). Scientists have concluded that cellphones may double a child's risk of getting a tumor on a nerve connecting your ear to your brain, damage cell membranes, radically decrease cellular production of energy and disrupt the communication between cells (S3). Cellphones are also a great deterrent of sleep. In a study of 10,000 16 to 19 year olds, researchers in Norway foudn that the longer a young person spent looking at an electronic screen before going to bed, the worse quality sleep they had. Those who spent more than four hours a day looking at screens had a 49% greater risk of taking longer than an hour to sleep and were 350% more likely to sleep for under five hours a night (S4). Being that sleep is crucial for youths, for physical and psychological development and for energy, many researchers discourage children from using cellphones.Sources:S1) https://www.fcc.gov...S2) https://www.newscientist.com...S3) http://articles.mercola.com...S4) http://www.independent.co.uk...

Title: Cell phones Content: even though cell phones are great they can also produce hearing problems and brain damage. because phones are becoming so great more people are getting them and peole are spending more time on them cell phones kill honeybees.....these days honey is used by hr8 patients & they would also someday die if this is continuously followed.

Title: should kids have cell phones Content: Thanks for the debate Pro.There were no rules or definitions, so I'll just get into it right now.This should be fun.*Introduction*It seems these days cell phones are everywhere and are virtually used for everything.We organize meetings, mess around with silly games and apps, and even order food via our cell phones.Most people will tell you that the life they live would be much more difficult without these devices.That's right, I said people.The problem is that kids are not people, so they neither have a purpose nor the ability to use cell phones.I'm going to negate this resolution that kids should have cell phones, because kids lack the ability to operate cell phones, kids have no use for a cell phone, and the dangers of leaving a cell phone in a kid's possession pose risks for both the kid and the cell phone. *Animal Rights*I get it.You want those conscious creatures, mainly mammals it seems, to be treated humanely and be afforded basic rights that humans have.On one hand, owning a cell phone isn't a right, so fighting for non-humans' cell phone rights is as silly as it is inaccurate.On the other hand, by giving kids a cell phone, you necessarily treat the kid inhumanely, because the cell phone parts are choking hazards if chewed and the lithium battery contains manganese dioxide, a known poison.So, while I sympathize with animal lovers, I've gotta draw the line at owning cell phones...shouldn't those phones go to people who need them first?My opponent may have a special place in his heart for kids, heck, my opponent may even have a kid living with them, for whom they think a cell phone should be designated.But if they truly love their kid, they'll keep them safe from harm.*Dangers*What would a kid use a cell phone for?If anything, I could see the kid chewing the phone to pieces, destroying the expensive device and endangering the kid at the same time.If you think plastic, metal, glass, and manganese dioxide is a delectable treat for kids, then by all means animal lovers, kill a kid and give them a cell phone.Personally, I'd like to avoid a future rife with this: https://www.google.com...Definitionsshould - used to indicate obligation.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...kid - a young goat.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...have - possess.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...cell phone - a mobile phone.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...*Conclusion*Therefore, I reject this resolution that young goats should have cell phones; the reasons should be obvious.

Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: Your whole entire argument on round 3 is based of that article. I'll be telling you why it's not enough information to support your claim. "I derived this information from a reliable website." Just saying that doesn't make it reliable. You have to look on more than one site, and the things you want to look for is ".org" or ".gov"! Anyone can just get a ".com", so you have to be careful. Your site is something I never heard of, and here is another site mentioning the study conducted, and why it isn't conclusive: "A recent small study in people has shown that cell phones may also have some other effects on the brain, although it"s not clear if they"re harmful. The study found that when people had an active cell phone held up to their ear for 50 minutes, brain tissues on the same side of the head as the phone used more glucose than did tissues on the other side of the brain. Glucose is a sugar that normally serves as the brain"s fuel. Glucose use goes up in certain parts of the brain when it is in use, such as when we are thinking, speaking, or moving. The possible health effect, if any, from the increase in glucose use from cell phone energy is unknown." https://www.cancer.org... Notice how it is a ".org" In one study that followed more than 420,000 cellphone users over a 20-year period, researchers found no evidence of a link between cellphones and brain tumors. Another study found an association between cellphones and cancer of the salivary glands. However, only a small number of study participants had malignant tumors. Another study suggested a possible increased risk of glioma " a specific type of brain tumor " for the heaviest cellphone users, but no increase in brain tumor risk overall." https://www.mayoclinic.org... It is also a ".org" Bring me more than an article. When official sites call out that study made and why it's not conclusive, your argument then becomes not conclusive.

Title: Kids don't need mobile phones. Content: My opponent has completely disregarded that mobile phones can be useful and in the case which I presented, even paramount to saving someone's life. For this she should lose conduct, as the case she presented is faulty. A home phone can't be accessed outside of one's home, this could hinder you from trying to call emergancy services. Sine you can't carry around your homephone a far distance from your house, it's a little useful when you're out in a canyon and someone has broken their leg. My opponent makes an anecdotal fallacy, with a faulty premise, I'll say what she means with some syllogism -I'm a kid and I don't use a cellphone. -I'm still alive C: No kids need cellphones. Obviously this kind of reasoning is completely illogical. My opponent states that Cellphones are a distraction for kids, yet fails to provide evidence. She is the one making the claim and doesn't even present evidence for her case. I really hope she learns from this debate. My opponent says that phones are to call people with, not to play games. She implies that all people use phones to play games on which is not the case, AGAIN she doesn't provide any sort of evidence to back up her ridiculous claims This debate is about whether or not kids need cellphones, and says that since kids don't need games, they don't need phone. Again, completely disregarding my case. Cellphones are not only used for playing games. A phone provides easier access to email, my opponent disregards this completely.

Title: Mobile Tech Hurts more than Helps Content: Even though mobile technology has impacted humans lives in some positive ways, they have also caused many tragic situations that, if humanity wasn't addicted to their phones, could have been avoidable. For instance, texting/email/talking on your phone while driving are a major cause of accidents on the roads. 23% of all car accidents (that's almost 3.1 million crashes) are caused by responding to a text or email while driving, 11 teens are killed each day because of this and almost 3500 people died in 2012 because of distracted driving involving a cell phone or various other mobile technologies. Humanity has put so much faith and life into their phones that the younger you start with a cell phone the worst your addition to it will get, people find themselves checking their phone on average 2 times a minute. Teenagers who have lost or left their phone at home go through withdrawals that have the same stress level as a drug addict who haven't had a fix. Due to peoples addictions to their phones this can also increase risks of cancer from the radiation that the phones let off, always having your phone in your pocket can cause the radiation to be exposed to your leg or private regions for almost 14 hours a day.

Title: the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved Content: These studies were based on people who had been using phones for 2-5 years, but this does not show the long term effects. Like smoking, using a phone for 2-5 years probably does not significantly increase your risk of cancer. However, after 10 years, I fear the story is different. A minority of small case studies have been conducted in this area, and they to the contrary show that such prolonged use does in fact lead to higher percentage of rare brain tumours. This was also shown to occur on the side of the head on which the participants used to listen to the phone with.

Title: Banning cell phones in cars Content: Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road.

Title: Should we use cell phones in school Content: you have a cell phone yourself and I don't see you having a seizure every time you check a text or text someone a smiley face geez Antonio .....NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT PHONES ARE HARMFUL thanks for using your imagination Mitch

Title: This House Believes that Children should be Allowed to Own and use Moblie Phones. Content: Thanks for Pro to accept.Hello today our topic is that This House Believes that Children should be Allowed to Own and use Mobile Phones. I disagree because of 4 reasons. My first reason is that There are long-term health risks to mobile phone use. My second reason is that Mobile phones are too expensive for children. My third reason is that Mobile phones are inappropriate distractions in school. My fourth reason is that Mobile phones are open to abuse. First I will tell you about Mobile Phones for children. The United Nations estimates that there are currently as many as 4.1 billion active mobile phone subscriptions. Modern mobile phones can perform a wide variety of functions, such as taking and sending photographs and video, playing music and games, and surfing the internet and accessing social networks. Their main use, however, remains for voice calls and for texting short messages. As prices of both phones and calls have come down in the past ten years or so with increased competition, they have become much more affordable for young people. This has raised questions about whether children should own phones, and if they should be allowed to take them into school. Schools in different countries, and within countries, take very different views on this issue. In many European schools, especially in Scandinavia, mobile phone technologies are actively used in education and to communication with students. Other schools allow them to be carried, but say they must never be turned on in school hours. Some (for example, New York schools) ban them entirely. Proponents of children being given mobile phones argue that they keep them safe, within reach of their parents at all times and are essential for maintaining friendships and social cohesion, whilst opponents maintain that they are susceptible to abuse and do not have the best interests of the child at heart.Now I will go on my first argument that My first reason is that There are long-term health risks to mobile phone use.“There are possible potential long-term health risks from using mobile phones. In May 2011, the World Health Organisation classified the radiation emitted by handsets as ‘possibly carcinogenic’. It has been widely accepted that the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones are absorbed into the body, ‘much of it by the head when the headset is held to the air’. Because children’s brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks – the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them. As Christopher Wild, who headed a study into the health risks of mobile use, instructed, ‘it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting’. The damage, despite not being conclusive, is potentially serious enough to warrant caution and preve.”Now I will move on my second argument which is Mobile phones are too expensive for children. Mobile phones are too expensive for children. Even if basic models are cheap to buy, calls are expensive and charges soon mount up because ‘what kids really want to do is text-message their friends, download music or play games’.[1] Many young people run up big bills their parents have to pay. A few rich families might be able to afford this, but for many parents the hours their kids spend on their cell phones are an uncontrollable expense they cannot cope with. Others are under peer pressure to get the newest, most stylish phones with all the latest gadgets.Banning mobile phones would at least partially reduce the financial strain on poorer families.Now I will move on my third argument which is Mobile phones are inappropriate distractions in school.Mobile phones are inappropriate in schools. They take students’ attention away from their lessons and undermine discipline. Rules about having them turned off in lessons are impossible to enforce – students just put them in silent mode and secretly text or play games in the back of the class. There have been many cases of students using mobiles to cheat in tests, in 2005 60% of cases involving taking unauthorized items into exam rooms involved mobile phones, and some of students recording embarrassing footage of their teachers to post on the internet. Schools are for learning and anything which gets in the way of that should be banned.Now I will move on my fourth argument which is that Mobile phones are open to abuse. Mobile phones are open to abuse, offering activities which are very inappropriate for children. The ability of modern phones to display graphics has led to the rise of mobile pornography, sexting, gambling and cyber-bullying. Most parents restrict their children’s television viewing and computer use, but it is much harder for them to monitor mobile phone use. In 2004, British mobile phone operators, in an effort to combat mobile abuse, enacted regulation that prevents children purchasing phones with unlimited internet access Though this demonstrates a problem has been identified, the solution does not address phones bought by parents for their children or children who already own phones with unlimited internet access. Given this, it is best that children are not allowed to own them.For these reasons we urge you to vote for CON.Sources:http://idebate.org...;

Title: Should students use phones in school Content: Did u know wifi is actually a form of radiation? The wifi waves are electro-magnetic and a study published by Princeton university shows that they actually can be harmful to children. Yes children with disabilities can benefit from specific programs but why do they need their own personal devices to do so? Technology is very important in the modern day but schools need to find a way to balance between traditional schooling while keeping up with our rapidly changing world. BYOD isn't the way.

Title: Are cellphones safe Content: the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved

Title: Cell phones Content: Cell phone is the most important thing in our life. we use it to see how people are when something happens. We communicate with people. Now days there are gps on our kids phone which can track them down. Also people use as a daily need. So i know cell phone is one! <3 all who like this >>> People get more brain damage from listening to people who claim cell phones create brain damage than they ever would from a cell phone. People are spending more and more time on them because they are a tool that aids and eases our society. We have music, movies, games, gps, communication and the internet at our fingertips wherever we are. That is beyond incredible

Title: mobile phones are a curse for todays youth Content: mobile phones.....in todays world what we know mobile phones are just 'Fashion' youngsters spend lots of money in just buying the latest handsets...and just show off.... it leads to brain tumours, cancers,,... it is a threat to life...

Title: No to modern technology Content: as what i have known modern technology can harm people such as radiation(for example) can cause death to human lives.

Title: do smart phones make kids dumber Content: Last year the Librarian of Congress warned that texting was responsible for a drastic decline in American sentences, but that opinion wasn't backed up by any scientific evidence. Now, a team of Australian psychologists has come a step closer to proving that mobile phones are destroying our ability to think. The researchers show that children who use mobile phones respond to higher-level cognitive tasks faster, but less accurately, than those who don't. 94% of Australians use cell phones, and the cognitive psychologists were testing for the negative effects of exposure to mobile phone radiation, especially among children, whose brains are still developing. In addition to fears that cell phones cause cancer, one earlier study found that school-age children who had been exposed to mobile phones as infants or in utero were almost twice as likely to be hyperactive or disruptive as those whose parents used land lines. The good news is that radio waves from mobile phones won't fry young brains or turn kids into delinquents. The bad news is, cell phones actually make children dumb (M. J. Abramson, G. P. Benke, C. Dimitriadis, I. O. Inyang, M. R. Sim, R. S. Wolfe, and R. J. Croft, "Mobile telephone use is associated with changes in cognitive function in young adolescents" Bioelectromagnetics 30.6 [early view, August, 2009]). Of the 317 seventh-graders who participated in the Australian study, 77% owned their own mobile phone and almost all the rest had used one. The children reported an average of eight calls and eight text messages a week, with heavy users logging as many as fifteen. Even though these figures seem low -- what 13-year-old would acknowledge receiving so few texts? -- those who used cell phones more responded to a battery of cognitive tests much faster, and much less accurately, than those who seldom called or texted, or those who didn't use mobiles at all. Specifically, the psychologists found that as mobile phone use increased, children learned to perform tasks more quickly, but their ability to remember things declined: "The accuracy of working memory was poorer, reaction time for a simple learning task shorter, associative learning response time shorter and accuracy poorer." Findings were the same whether children called or texted, and since texting involves very little exposure to radiation, this suggests that it's the act of phoning, not the radiation, that accounts for decreased cognitive ability. The researchers went so far as to suggest that mobile phone use also correlates with impulsivity, and that cell phone utilities like 'predictive texting' actually condition children to favor speed over accuracy. (For other research on texting, click here and here; for the impact of texting on literature, click here; for its impact on politics, click here; for its impact on language development, click here). But reports that cell phones are destroying our brains are premature. Even the Australian researchers acknowledge that it might be unwise to depend on the accounts of thirteen year olds for accurate information about how many calls or texts they receive each week. Nor is it reasonable to conclude that mobile phones cause children to respond faster to assigned tasks (ever try to get a cell-phone-enabled thirteen year old to do their homework in a hurry?) or to make their answers less accurate (they can text perfectly without looking at the keyboard; can you?).

Title: Banning cell phones in cars Content: Citizens' judgement should be trusted in using cell phones

Title: The mobile phone do more good than harm. Content: Greetings opponent. I could see the effort you put in for the argument. It is dramatic enough for one to believe that mobile phone do more harm. However, I would like to keep the excitement going. It is indeed true that internet is accessible via many devices like computer, Ipad etc. I would like to highlight a point that opponent overlooked, the screen size and usage. I broke down the devices into three category namely, laptop, tablets and mobile phones which I wanted to compare a few key stats on each device. If one boarded the bus any random day and looked around his/her surroundings, it won"t be a surprise to find that half or maybe more of the commuters are using phones. Of course, it is also fair to say that some use tablets and few use laptops. While one might rethink about why most of the commuters use phone instead of other devices, I think it is safe to say that mobile phone are actually easier to carry around and they can make phone calls. It may not be their main use any more but most of us still want to be able to speak to our friends and family when out of the house. It is also true to say that some commuters prefer to watch movies and thus a tablet might be a better choice to them, however it normally won"t be the first choice for most people. For the second point, I find it rather interesting to compare digital dictionary and dictionary application in the phone. It would be less pleasing to reiterate the differences between hard copy dictionary and dictionary application again. I believe not many would fancy flipping the pages to find the matching alphabet. Now going back to the point, I believe it does cost money to buy a digital dictionary. If one looked in app store in one"s phone, online dictionaries namely Dictionary.com , Oxford, Merriam-Webster etc; those dictionary applications are all free. I therefore come to the conclusion that if both dictionaries give the same information or an explanation for a particular word by just typing a few alphabets, it is understanding enough to say the online dictionary is more considerable. Thirdly, I do agree with what the opponent mentioned regarding about the issue regarding pupils using mobile phones in school. Debates are going on in figure out whether students are allowed to use mobile/cell phones in school. One of the example, from (http://www.debate.org...) .Although this includes a little of integrity and helps from teachers, situations like this needs a relatively long period of time to resolve. I looked through what opponent had pointed out regarding about addictions. I did some research and would like to share this research report (http://www.researchgate.net...) carried out 6 years ago. As the opponent suggested that "reliable sources" including Wikipedia might be giving the false information , I want to point out that this website contains reliable resources. It contains results carried out from experiments about addictions of problematic phone users, the causes and effects. Although this report does not directly link to how I want to go against my opponent"s view, one could have more idea about the issue of addiction. It is clear that this might be one of the harm mobile phones carried and had been seen as a problem as far as researches had proven. From http://www.webmd.com...... that opponent had highlighted out respecting to the issue of checking phone regularly, it is understood that it could be a habit that might be harmful to the users. However, suggestions made from (http://thenextweb.com...) that might help to get rid of this habit. Now, one could argue back that not a lot of people will follow the suggestions and led a better lifestyles. However, if that one among ten people would want to change for the better , I believe it"s an improvement that is worth being glad about. While what the opponent suggested might be true, it would be better to suggest a few examples to go against my point. In my view, I think it is safe to say that having a soft copy or a hard copy is fine. However I believe most shoppers prefer soft copy when out for a shopping spree. It would be rather difficult to carry a piece of paper written with a list of stuffs we wanted, however mobile phone could play a more significant part in this situation. If one argue back regarding about efficiency and the price, I would like to stress that jotting down notes do waste papers and pen ink. Thus mobile phone has indeed became a great part of our daily lives due to its usefulness. On the next point, I would like to ask my opponent a question. If you are suggesting that not many students will actually follow the teacher's instruction, how many will? I believe not everyone are addicted to mobile phone like its drugs or smoking, but what percentage of pupils will improve on their usage of phone after the speech or lecture? If there is after all an improvement made after the speech, I do believe one might spend their life more wisely. Now, does it really matter how many students would follow the instructions? Of course after admitting that you use a phone, how sure are you that only a few people out there use mobile devices wisely? And if we considered mobile phone as a multi-purpose device, why are we classifying entertainment as something that will harm us? If one argue that mobile phone could only be used for educational purposes then it should be for sure that mobile phone should not even exist in the first place. People should continue to use hard copy dictionary and spend time reading books for evidences. While it seem to most people phone has been used for entertainment and is pretty much of waste of time. From the source: (https://www.psychologytoday.com...). Sure, it's easy to make fun of fans and celebrities and Americans riveted to their televisions watching obese people exercising and getting weighed, but who says people have to engage in serious activities all the time? If we look at what most people have been doing most of the time throughout human history, it's probably not discussing moral philosophy and inventing calculus. And part of the reason for that is that people need rest and recovery time and enjoyable activities: without some sort of stress relief we would self-destruct. While it seems like the amount of time spent in front of the mobile screen is increasing, it is also obvious that mobile devices are becoming a great part of our life. It is possible to infer that people seem more happy with mobile phone and this might reduce stress. Interactions via phone might be important, urgent or compulsory during some situations and could help save many lives. From the source my opponent had given, (searchenginewatch.com) it is however not very convincing as it is stated that it researched on 2March2013, about 2 years behind the present. I would like to restate that I'm not only stressing about inspiration quotes in this case but also other positive entertainment resource that would make one's day. Touching on the topic of cyber bullying, from what the source provided, it is sure that parents are informed about situations like this. They were also taking part in this survey that supports my opponent's statement. Like I said earlier in my argument, parents should indeed get informed about this situation. It is however understood that children are still being cyber bullied now and the only way to reduce it is to prevent it. From source:(http://www.stopbullying.gov...) both parents and children could play a small part in this prevention. I shall not be disappointed because it indeed need people who are educated and well-taught. This need plenty of time and maybe generations after generations so that people will fully understand what their actions or words could do to one individual. I would like to skip the topic of Amanda Todd because it is disrespectful to touch on this topic in the form of debate. I apologies and may she rest in peace. It is a little irony from what you had suggested regarding about the resource. If 90% of the internet resources are not true, are you indirectly suggesting that whatever people had been researching for might not even be half true? If you are suggesting 90% of the internet resources are not true, where the evidence(s)? Are you absolutely sure that the evidence(s) you are going to support lately might be true too? Or is it(them) among the 90% which is untrue. As such, you might gotten misinformed and potentially 'dumb down'. For my last point, it is true that internet do has negative influence. While it contain negativity, it also contain positive vibes. One of the negative examples might be Amos Yee, but it is understood that no all are like him. Not everyone carries the negative mindset around and upset others. There are indeed plenty of human beings out there who left a mark in this world. I should end here due to my tight schedule. It is indeed very enjoyable to have such a tough debate with you, my opponent. Hope to hear from you soon.

Title: Ban cell phones for people under 16 Content: A World Health Organization study released in 2010 showed that using a mobile for more than half-an-hour a day for ten years increased the risk of a brain tumor. Many public health experts believe that, as serious risks to children could be involved, we cannot wait for science to be conclusive. John Wargo, Ph.D., professor of Environmental Risk and Policy at Yale University and lead author of a report released in February 2012 by US health charity EHHI that "The scientific evidence is sufficiently robust showing that cellular devices pose significant health risks to children and pregnant women." (mobilewise.org) Parents should be building relationships with their children and not relying on cell phones to keep tabs on them. There are many instances where a cell phone is useless, dead battery, poor signal or turned off any of these instances would add to a parents worries about their child. Victims of cyber bullying are the targets of lies or vicious gossip or are victims of impersonation. Most parents of victims have no idea it's happening. Victims often don't want to tell their parents about it; they may be embarrassed or, they may not fully realize that they are being bullied. They know that what is happening makes them feel bad but may not connect with the fact that it is wrong and something that they should tell someone about. Cyber bullying can lead to suicide. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), 4,400 children a year commit suicide and for every child who dies there are 100 suicide attempts. Cyber bullying has been linked to suicide, whether the child is the bully or the one being bullied. Children under 16 should not have cell phones but should supervised by adults.

Title: Cell phones do more harm than good in society and schools today Content: I believe that cell phones are doing way more harm than good. When you walk down the street all that you see is people walking down the street with their phones in their faces. When we didn't have cell phones people actually talked to each other

Title: Debate.org should not demand your cell phone number to access certain features. Content: For maximum clarity, I will simply review the debate and show How I have won. So first to my own case, 1. Security- My opponent has conceded this point; vote for me. 2. The number is not used- My opponent claims I make no actual rebuttal here, but I urge to please review my statements. what I said is indeed a rebuttal, it covers my opponent's argument's and clarifies my point. However along with my opponent's insidious attack, he goes on to claim that I don't understand human nature. I would like to point out, that I am twenty years old, my opponent is fourteen; logically I must understand human nature more than my opponent as I have had longer to see it in action, second- I work in retail; trust me when I say I've seen the good and bad in humanity. Also my opponent's only real attack is still only an objection based on suspicion. 3. Limited usage is not the end of the world- My opponent doesn't cover the arguments I made, vote for me. Now I will proceed to my opponent's case 1. Some people may not have a cell phone- Once again, my opponent is avoiding the topic, those who have more get to do more. as awful as this might sound it's an undeniable truth in the society we live in. so why then,should those who do have cell phones (Which we've already determined is the more enumerated portion of society) lose out? this would violate the utilitarian ideology we've founded our society upon! 2. Having to borrow the cell phone of a friend/family member is an outrageous solution- I'm not going say anything here, instead I just ask you to review the debate and look at just what my opponent said in refutation towards my attack on him simply being suspicious. Vote for me here. 3. What will they do with my number- My opponent drops this point, he instead opts to talk about his own suspicions again; do not look to these vote for me. now that I've covered everything said thus far, I want to point out some things my opponent claims I've advocated in the course of this debate ========== -I should not care about users without cell phones. -That one argument means nothing because of one comparison you deem unreasonable. -Debate. org is not a place for talking about Debate. org. -I should trust Debate. org with a piece of my personal information without any knowledge of the site because. .. it's Debate. org? ========== I'm neither going to waste your, nor insult your intelligence pointing out the obvious flaws here, instead I offer you this as fodder in the fire that is the reasons you need to vote for me. and so in conclusion; my final words in this debate. You cannot allow my opponent to win this debate, he provides no logical backing on why he ought to win, he provides no empirical evidence to advocate his point, and the sum total of his logic re simply his own unfounded suspicions, and general distrust towards society. while on the flip side, I offer you logical, and sound reasoning; I've shown the usefulness of having members verify themselves with their phone. And so for all of these reasons, we can see no other vote in this round than for myself. (also, this system helps prevent vote-bombing since you need to verify by phone to vote. not a voting issue I know, as this is my last speech, but I thought I point that out. )

Title: Cell phones in cars can be regulated, unlike other distractions Content: "Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - "Previous attempts to stop motorists using hand-held cellphones foundered in the face of arguments that cellphones are just one form of driver distraction. Eating, loading cassettes or CDs into car stereos, dropped cigarettes and even buzzing insects can be equally hazardous. But cellphone use, which contributed to 26 fatal crashes and 411 injury crashes between 2002 and 2007, is something the Government can do something about now."

Title: Drivers don't get better with practice on cell phones Content: "Hands-free cellphone use while driving won't make the roads safer, studies show." LA Times. 30 June 2008 - "'And you don't get any better with practice,' Strayer adds. In his lab, subjects who reported they use a cellphone a lot when driving 'show every bit as much impairment' than those who do so infrequently."

Title: Mobile phones should be banned in schools! Content: I apologize if I ever offended you, con. I pasted half of your argument into mine to make rebuttals easier.Banning phones in school has been hotly debated everywhere, especially here on the Internet. Both sides (agrees to ban or against) are understandable in every way, but all we need to know is which side is totally acceptable and superior than the other. While cell phones certainly offer students increased communication abilities, providing students with a tool for added safety and parent contact, many public school leaders assert that cell phones are a severe distraction in the educational process. The following are sourced.[1] According to the National School Safety and Security Offices (NSSSO), cell phones have been an increasingly negative disruption in schools: “We have opposed policies allowing or encouraging students to have cell phones and pagers in school. On a day-to-day basis, they are disruptive to the educational environment. This also has been the general position of many school districts over the years.” The NSSSO argues that allowing cell phones for safety reasons is inaccurate. As they explain, “Changing policies under the guise of cell phones being a crisis tool for student safety is, in our opinion, a knee-jerk reaction and is not ‘the answer’ to school crisis preparedness that some may believe it to be.” In fact, oftentimes school and security officials report that students falsely call in bomb threats or reports of threats on their cell phones as an over-reaction or as a prank; in such cases, these cell phones can force the entire evacuation of a school, while also making it nearly impossible for security teams to try and figure out where the call was placed, and which student(s) made the call.These are based from the number of public schools the strongly disagrees in allowing phones within the school premises. Rebuttals"Mobiles can save the lives, though it is necessary to be with every kid in school, because they can use it to inform their families in case of any emergency."For this one, I agree, but I stated the cons behind this on the very first round. To let things be clear and to refresh minds, let me quote what I said: "2.) 'For emergency' Is the most used excuse in this kind of topic. Parents think of cell phones as a connection to their children in an emergency. But I wonder what the last situation was that genuinely called for an immediate phone call to a child. In most cases, contacting the hospital or the police would seem more urgent. And parents can always call the school's main office to reach their children."Scroll up if you do not believe me, but these are the exact wordings from my previous argument. "Mobiles as a library:You can get any information you need by single click. it actually enables you to have a world in your hand."This is the reason why we have libraries within almost every school. Everyone would agree that books are far superior than looking for it on the internet. On the web we can never be sure that the article that we read about Science or maybe History are actually true. For all we know, someone unexperienced could post false informations on the topic. But with the books that are in the library, we are certain that the statistics or data written in these books are accurate because authorized and skilled authors wrote them.Using a phone can be quick, but when it comes to real infos, I'll have to wonder what the point is.Con also declared:"Mobiles are socially important:I am sure if yourself does not carry a mobile in school, your mates would laugh on you, because you may not find anyone without mobile, therefore if you dont have you would feel awkward and that would show you cheap, though mobiles are socially important."Have we been lost on the subject? We are only talking about banning phones in school, but it doesn't mean that we do not have them."Mobiles make you easy reachable:You can be reached anytime and anywhere, and this can be done with mobiles."This is similar to the one with the emergency calls. Parents can call the teacher or the school. If this is the only reason why we should lift the ban, then it is not reasonable enough. This is the only appropriate reason why this debate hasn't ended for years. If this is the only problem, the parents can have the advisers' phone numbers to contact their children. This might be ridiculous to hear, but the truth is, phones are the top contributor in decreasing children's interest in school. So if this is the right way, it must be done."I will give a live example for you, suppose your little brother has fallen from roof and your mom and dad is on a long trip, and you are the only one living with your brother, in the same time he is fallen from roof, you are in school, what if you dont have mobile and you are not aware of your little brother!!though accept it that mobile should not be banned in schools, because you would never know what gonna happen next!"Again, this is identical to the previous one. Communication, again and again.I suppose calling the authorities is better if I ever experienced this kind of accident. Calling parents that are in a long trip isn't the priority here. Your brother must be in a hospital so the first thing that I would do is to call the teachers and have them call the ambulance. If the injury is not that severe, bringing it to the school nurse is alright. The teacher can call the parents on the trip just to let them know what happened.Rebuttals against con's rebuttals:"-Cheating:I would like to state, that no where in the world is allowing mobiles during exam! though cheating in exam is pointless!It is not as simple as you think, that you can ever cheat through your mobile during exam, and if you think you are a bright kid you dont need to cheat!!"No one is allowing phone during exam, yes, and that is equal to prohibition from school. Cheating in exam is pointless. That's also why schools should ban them. Not every child is smart enough to realize that. "-Texting:I think pro is forgetting about the topic! The topic is banning mobiles in school not in class!"I am not forgetting about the topic, con. Where exactly is a class? It's in a school."1. Schools are having policy for banning mobiles inside the class! and during the class time no kid is allowed to use their mobiles, if they ever use they are banned in the class but school does not bear the right to make the mobile banned in school."Disallowing it in class is also as important as banning it in school. Cheating is possible when in class. It's also possible in school. "2. there are reasons for those kids who set behind and they are not concentrating in the class! that is the responsibility of school master to check whether the kid is interested in the subject or not and they should find out if the teacher is not boring for them, though we can say a good system in schools would never stop kids to use mobile!if they trust on their education system they should not make the mobiles banned!"Banning phones is equal to removing the top contributor of losing the students' interest in school. Therefore, we are reducing the chances of having a stupid society in the future. It's the responsibility of the school master to know if the kid is interested? School masters' job is to run the school smoothly, not for making sure that the students are interested or not. "if they trust on their education system they should not make the mobiles banned!"? Con, you should definitely check if this sentence is correct. I Think you could figure it out yourself without someone pointing it out for you. They should trust their education system if they ban phones.Con, mobiles are definitely used for entertainment when in school. It's useful outside, but within the school it isn't helpful. To answer your question, I home study because I currently reside in a foreign country with a foreign language and a foreign culture. Source:http://www.publicschoolreview.com...;

Title: Why cell phones should not be allowed in classrooms Content: Cell phones should be allowed on school campuses and classrooms as they can serve as a reliable source for an emergency at the moment. A cellphone can also be a reliable source for information or research on a topic or school assignment.

Title: Students should be allowed full use of their cell phones during school hours. Content: My opponent continues to talk about a ban of cell phones. A ban is a legal or formal prohibition. Beer was banned once, and it could not even be seen unless for certain uses.. However, unlike like this ban on alcohal, cell phones are allowed to be in the student's back pack or pocket, when alcohal was not. This means that there is no cell phone band, but a restriction of use on cell phones. He also said that cheating has occured before the cell phone. Yes, this is true, but cell phones are not as easy to catch compared to people passing notes. Students today have found ways to hide cell phones and when they need knew ones, they will create them. My opponent said that a longer period for the phone to be away from its owner should counter my countinuous flow of rule breaking and punishment. It can only holt the process until the student gets the phone back, which would still be a continuous flow that can only end at permanant loss of the phone. My opponent brought the point of an emergency occuring outside of the school. He is saying that students should have their cell phones on in case of a random emergency that may have a low risk percentage of occuring. Unless this emergency is already known by the student, then he or she should not have their cell phone on. During school hours, students could use their cell phones to send a threatening text message to someone. This could be endangerment of a life, punishable by law. Making a great chance that the school could be seen negatively for not preventing these things does do harm to the government because the school system, or education, is usually looked upon to be the best . "ban." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online. 22 January 2009 <http://www.merriam-webster.com...; "Cell Phone and Pager Issues." National School Safety and Security Services . 2008. National School Safety and Security Services . 22 Jan 2009 <http://www.schoolsecurity.org...;

Title: Banning cell phones in cars Content: Banning cell phones is not the best way to save lives

Title: Nuclear Power Content: Thank You Mr President for an insightful look into the "bennefits" of nuclear power. Now onto my rebuttal! Nuclear power is safe? I would have to consider the claim by my opponent that nuclear power is safe, to be a little more than a stretch, it's outright false. There are several factors my opponent failed to consider. First let's consider the health effects on the uranium minners! https://www.scientificamerican.com.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... https://www.epa.gov... Since most uranium minning is not done in western countries, most westerners are unaware of the effects that plague uranium minners, and that extends to the enrichment process as well. My opponent seems to downplay the effects of major meltdowns. When radioactive material is released on as large of a scale as it was at chernobyl, the radiation becomes omnipresent. It doesn't act like a liquid or a chemical which are influenced by matter, instead it radiates through the air, the vegetation on the ground, and the ground itself, including groundwater, insects and animals. It moves through solid earth as if the earth isn't even there. It contaminates the earth, the insects, the animals, the vegetation and groundwater in the effected area for hundreds of years. Only 25 to 40 deaths can be inextricably linked to the Chernobyl meltdown, but the World Health Organization says that number is probably far higher, but since radiation sickness effects each person differently, it would be impossible to directly link each death to that specific incident. Furthermore, the WHO (the organization, not the band) has noted a rise in cancer and infant mortality rates in the effected areas of the Chernobyl meltdown. https://www.usnews.com.... http://www.world-nuclear.org.... More than three quarters of the nuclear power plants in the US have reported some kind of radiation leak. My opponent also brings up the fact that sea levels are rising which should also be of concern for all of us because nuclear power plants need large amounts of water, so they are built near water. It may not take a mega earthquake to cause the next nuclear accident. Because of global warming, powerful storms happen more often, these storms may be a risk to the "safety" of nuclear power. In March of 2014, a Malaysian flight with more than 200 people went missing. Officials believe the pilot purpously took the plane off course and flew it into the ocean, it has never been seen or heard of since. Could a nuclear technician with suicidal feelings be capable of sabotaging a reactor and cause unspeakable damage to lives? This scenario is conjecture I know, but in my mind, the only way to know with 100% certainty that it can't happen would be to prohibit nuclear energy. http://gizmodo.com.... There's also the storing of radioactive waste, which has to be stored, cooled, and monitored for 100,000 years. The facilities that store the waste has to be maintained and checked for leaks, and guarded because of the hazards it can pose to humans, and its appeal to terrorists. This does not sound safe to me. None of these problems would arise from renewable energy. If the glove don't fit, we must prohibit! Nuclear is NOT clean. My opponent points out that solar and wind farms need backup generators far more often then nuclear, he also points out that nuclear plants produce far more energy. I don't dispute those claims, but when you put them into context, you realize that nuclear would need to rely on backup generators just as much, if not more. Nuclear plants produce more energy than solar or wind, but when a nuclear plant is down, it would need more, or larger generators to compensate for a higher energy demand. Furthermore, as I pointed out in my opening statement, energy saving batteries are becoming cheaper and more efficient, which eliminates the need for backup generators. I also pointed out that nuclear has to rely on GHG burning equipment for minning and processing, and trucks and trains for shipping. The process of creating nuclear energy is NOT free of GHG emissions. http://www.sciencedirect.com... Thermal pollution is also an environmental concern posed by nuclear power. Cost!!! When you take into consideration the cost of building an energy producing facility, and the cost of gathering and processing the fuel needed for the energy source, it gives you a wider spectrum of the true cost of your energy. This type of calculation is called "levelized cost".http://energyinnovation.org.... When you take all these points of analysis into consideration, nuclear doesn't do as well when compared to many different types of renewables. I must also point out that this analysis doesn't take into consideration any possible environmental impact posed by each power source, so renewables would fair even better vs traditional power sources. My opponent seems to be prodding me to argue for prohibiting nuclear power immediately, however I see no need for this resolution. I think as renewables become more of a mainstream option, countries will recognize that traditional power sources are obsolete and will no longer renew the contracts needed for continuing production. Furthermore there is nothing in the proposal by my opponent that suggests I have to adhere to an "immediate end to nuclear" argument. Testify, bsh1.

Title: Mobile Phones Used by Children Content: Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children....

Title: 100 Debate challenge 10: THBT Children should be encouraged to own and use phones Content: Cell phones keep kids safe. Access to emergency services is in their pockets at all times. Every kid in America can have instant access to police or medical services. This is a safer world for children and one where parents can rest easier at night. Rebuttals 1. In today's world there is just no denying all the access to technology kids have. Kids need to be taught sooner rather than later how to avoid online dangers. My opponent quotes a source saying that 2.5% of people are pedophiles and between 1% and 5% molest children. This is fear mongering lies. If you follow his link you'll see they quote their stats from the source I quote (coming up). That source states that between 1% and 5% of teachers molest children. I believe that's where the 1% to 5% number came from. I'm not sure about the 2.5% number. It looks like they cite their stats for the first 10 or so provided but get lazy with the last 30 or so. So these numbers can't be trusted. http://www.cpiu.us... Upon reading the stats that are cited on that page. It would seem that most children victims of rape and molestation are assaulted by people they know. 96% of females are raped by people they know. Only a total of 1/7 of victims were assaulted by strangers. This means cellphones would not likely be a contributing factor to a child getting raped. I'd say if anything, having a cell phone is a deterrent to a stranger trying to scoop up a kid and rape them. 2. My opponent ha not shown how having a phone causes addiction to porn or social networking and how such addictions would be negative. That being said, a parent does have the capability of restricting access to certain content on the phone and spotting these addictive tendencies early is probably a good thing.

Title: Full-body scans pose no more risk than x-ray machines Content: Arthur Weinreb. "Full-body scanners; it's just common sense." Canada Free Press. January 8, 2010: "The CBC warned that the scanners emit radiation. Well, if ways have been found protect x-ray technicians and others who work with radiation, then the screeners can be protected. And there was nothing to suggest that flyers who get scanned are at risk although when the machines are put into use, that will inevitably come up."

Title: Parents should ban their children from the use of smartphones Content: WORTHY opponent! Please forfeit the rounds of this debate as I have taken the wrong side. I'm con, so I should've talked about the advantages of mobile phones for children. Thank you.

Title: cell phone being banned while driving Content: "I believe that cell phones should be banned while driving because it poses a threat to other drivers. " Last time I checked, cell phones do not pose threats to other drivers. They are merely electronic devices. "Cell phones often cause accidents. " No, they don't. "Cell phones are a bigger threat of a distraction then radios are. " Prove it. Thank you.

Title: how young is to young to have a cellphone Content: Ok so i say that cellphone not smartphones are ok for kids and young adults to use. here is something for you to fight 911 calls.

Title: Banning cell phones in cars Content: Cell phone use in cars probably saves lives

Title: Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good Content: Btw. when i got into this debate i thought i was agreeing with the cell phones doing more harm, Lol considering im new to this but yea i messed up

Title: should we use nuclear power Content: Since we both agree that Nucler power is unsafe, that should be a prevailing argument for this debate. Despite how helpful it maybe , since we cannot be assured of safety it cannot be used. It's like saying that we will let a wolf live in the house because he is helpful in some way. Safety first. Impact of a single disaster wiped out any financial benefit and destroys generations to come.

Title: The mobile phone do more good than harm. Content: Hello opponent, before I proceed with my argument, I shall convey my thanks to my opponent who has started this debate. I really hope that this debate will turn out to be interesting and fun. Now, let me get on with my argument. Cell phones are technological devices that are widely used all over the world. Around the world, mobile phone sales have increased from more than 100 million units per year in 1997 to an estimated 779 million units per year in 2005(which is more than the increase of human population) .They act as great tools for communication during every day life and emergencies. They also serve a purpose to connect people from all over the world to join in an event and bond together. Although cell phones may be argued to be hindrances in the class room, they are now helpful to classrooms and learning. In addition to telephony, modern mobile phones also support a wide variety of other services such as text messaging, MMS, email, Internet access, short-range wireless communications (infrared, Bluetooth), business applications, gaming, and photography. Cell phones make it easier for people to communicate and interact with each other without really knowing another in person. In today"s day and age, communication is almost everything. People do not have the time to meet with every person they need to talk to. Being able to reach these people at any time makes cell phones convenient devices that are only helping people in their daily lives. Also, when parents are out with their children or their children are out by themselves, their parents can contact them at any time to ask where they are. If their child is lost, they can either call them, or use tracking devices on many cell phones nowadays to find them. My claim is supported by a study done by pewresearch.org. It states that 89% of online teens say the internet and other devices in their lives like cell phones, iPods, and digital cameras make their lives easier, while 71% of their parents agree. 5% of people think that cell phones are a bad thing. Another study done by pewresearch.org states that 98% of parents of cell-owning teens say a major reason their child has the phone is that they can be in touch no matter where the teen is. Cell phones are good devices not only because they are helpful for communication and dangerous situations, but because they are helpful in classrooms. Liz Ritter Hall said that cell phones have the capability to become the "Swiss army knife" for student research and organization. In class rooms, cell phones can be "data collection tools"audio recorders, digital cameras, and digital camcorders." All these new uses for cell phones in class rooms makes them very good educational devices. Students can do fast researching and answering with their cell phone devices using online dictionary or simply google them. If cell phones can be useful and educational in class rooms, they are obviously helping and doing more good than they are harm. Cell phone also serve a purpose for people to understand each other better through social media apps like Instagram, Facebook ,Twitter etc. Social media apps allows people to share the moments in their life by pictures and discover people who will be able to inspire them into a better person. Cell phone also allow people to have a better understanding of the other parts of the world through videos and pictures that can broaden one"s horizon. Cell phones act as excellent safety devices and are useful during emergencies for people of all ages. They can be used to contact parents and help when there are in unsafe or risky situations. According to an American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) poll, 56% of people over the age of 65 cite safety as a reason they have a cell phone. A majority of cell phone users (57%) who report that they have an annual household income of less than $30,000 say that they have cell phone service for safety and security reasons. Cell phones may be argued as distractions at school, however cell phones are now actually being used in classes for educational purposes, so they are helping education. Cell phones also allow the access to online learning during e-learning day for the primary and secondary pupils when they were supposed to study at home. Additionally, cell phones have been argued to be distractions on the road. However there are laws now that prevent cell phones from causing accidents and driving interferences. Although there is a slight environmental damage issue that cell phones have created, the problem is being quickly turned around by informing people about electronic recycling. And though cell phones have been found to cause brain damage, in order for brain damage to occur, cell phones must be used for heavy amounts of time for over many years. Additionally, cell phones must also be right next to the head in order for it to cause any damage. Although cell phones do have disadvantages, they also have benefits. They are important and convenient, making our lives much easier. For the reasons that we have stated, we prove our point that Cell phones do more good than harm.

Title: Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good Content: Cell Phones are destroying society now a days. When i walk around out in public all i see is kids, adults, etc. with their eyes glued to their phones, today you can't even hold a civil conversation with someone anymore which is dangerous to your health actually Cell Phones can affect your brain activity, for example talking on the phone with another person simply holding a phone to your ear for a extended amount of time increases activity in regions of the brain closest to the antenna. Researchers have found that Glucose metabolism in the orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole increased significantly when the phone was turned on and muted, compared with when it was off (P=0.004). This may be a acute affect but it contributes to reasons of why they are harmful. Social life, i enjoy being able to talk to someone face to face for others it may be different but studies show that social media is causing anxiety Forty-five percent of responders said they feel "worried or uncomfortable" when email and Facebook are inaccessible, while 60 percent of respondents stated "they felt the need to switch off" their phones and computers to secure a full-fledged break from technology. In other words, it's not being on social networks that makes people anxious. It's being away from them. This can cause to depression and other issues. Which is very harmful for a person.

Title: Embracing cell phones in school Content: Cell phones is a very controversial topic in a school system, but the instigators reasoning is wrong. Many if not all teachers have cell phones. Wall/hard-wired phones are in every room. The teacher/instructor can just use that. Phones should not be used in lockdown/fire situations anyway do to the unsafeness and the fact they JUST SHOULDN'T.

Title: This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use mobile phones. Content: Actually, I am not a beginner. I've been doing debate for about 1 year. My time ran out so I accidentally forfeited. Calling my account a dummy account and myself a beginner goes against the conduct rules in this debate, which shows that I have a high chance of winning. But, since I accidentally forfeited last round, I will now present my arguments. Arguments I will present: 1. Bad for Health: 2. Games/ Game addiction Firstly, bad for health: Information below are from http://www.medicaldaily.com... and contain lots of information about bad health as a result of mobile phones. Negatively Affects Emotions The presence of a cell phone while two or more people are talking face-to-face can generate negative feelings toward the person who has his or her device visible. In two studies conducted at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom, researchers studied the effects of a mobile device during a nose-to-nose conversation. In the first study, 37 pairs of strangers were asked to spend 10 minutes talking to each other about an interesting event that happened in their lives within the past month. Half of the participants were seated in a secluded area with a mobile device present on a desk nearby whereas the other half remained without a cellphone. The results of the study showed that those who had a mobile device nearby were perceived less positive by the stranger, compared to the other participants without a cell phone present. In the second study, researchers included 34 different pairs of strangers who were asked to discuss trivial topics while others were asked to discuss significant events that occurred in their life. Half of the participants chatted with a mobile device while with the stranger and the other half had a notebook. The results of the study showed that those who spoke about significant events in their lives with a notebook present experienced a feeling of closeness and trust in the stranger, unlike those with a cell phone. "These results demonstrate that the presence of mobile phones can interfere with human relationships, an effect that is most clear when individuals are discussing personally meaningful topics," said the researchers of the study. Increases Stress Levels The high frequency of cell phone use can have negative effects on our stress levels. The constant ringing, vibrating alerts, and reminders can put a cell phone user on edge. In a study conducted at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, researchers examined if there is a direct link between the psychosocial aspects of cell phone use and mental health symptoms in young adults. The participants of the study included 20 to 24 year olds who responded to a questionnaire, in addition to a one-year follow-up. Researchers found high mobile phone use was associated with stress and sleep disturbances for women, whereas high mobile phone use was associated with sleep disturbances and symptoms of depression in men. Overall, excessive cell phone use can be a risk factor for mental health issues in young adults. Increases Risk Of Illnesses In Your Immune System The incessant touching of your phone can harbor germs on your handset. The greasy, oily residue you may see on your cellphone after a day's use can contain more disease-prone germs than those found on a toilet seat. In a study conducted at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Queen Mary, University of London, researchers sampled 390 cell phones and hands to measure for levels of bacteria. The results of the study showed that 92 percent of the cell phones sampled had bacteria on them " 82 percent of hands had bacteria " and 16 percent of cell phones and hands had E. Coli. Fecal matter can easily be transferred by cell phones from one person to another. Increases Risk Of Chronic Pain Cell phones require constant use of your hands, especially when sending text messages and e-mails. Responding to messages at rapid speed can cause pain and inflammation of your joints. Back pain is also common with increased cell phone use, especially if you hold the phone between your neck and shoulders as you multitask. "Long periods of cell phone use cause you to arch your neck and hold your body in a strange posture. This can lead to back pain," says Healthcentral.com. Increases Risk Of Eye Vision Problems Staring at your mobile device can cause problems in your vision later in life. Screens on mobile devices tend to be smaller than computer screens, which means you are more likely to squint and strain your eyes while reading messages. According to The Vision Council, more than 70 percent of Americans don't know or are in denial that they are susceptible to digital eye strain. Secondly, game addiction. Smart phones have lots of games, and games cause lots of problems. Look below: THE LEARNING BRAIN ON GAMES Practicing anything repetitively physically changes the brain. With time and effort, you get better at the specific task you're practicing, whether it's shooting at the enemy in a video game or hitting a baseball. Those repetitive actions and thoughts stimulate connections between brain cells, creating neural pathways between different parts of your brain. The more you practice a certain activity, the stronger that neural pathway becomes. That's the structural basis of learning. "Use it or lose it" applies not just to muscles in the body, but also the brain. Neural pathways that are not used eventually get pruned. In the early 2000s, most research suggested that perceptual and cognitive training was very specific to the task at hand. That's one of the problems with many brain training tools: it's easy for people to improve on the individual mini-tasks they're given"say, arranging a list in alphabetical order or completing a crossword puzzle"but those tasks don't always translate into better thinking in general. Video games seem to differ from other kinds of brain training. "Unlike some other brain training tools, video games activate the reward centers, making the brain more receptive to change," explains C. Shawn Green, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Studies show, for example, playing action video games enhances visual capabilities, such as tracking multiple objects, mentally rotating objects, and storing and manipulating them in the memory centers of the brain. That holds true even for the most maligned action-entertainment games. Such games also require players to think of an overall strategy, perform several tasks simultaneously, and make decisions that have both an immediate and long-term impact. "That's very much like the multi-tasking inherent in most jobs today," says Dr. Willis. "These young people may be better equipped to switch between tasks easily, adapt to new information, and modify their strategy as new input comes in." Useful skills, to be sure, but exercised excessively they can also become problems. After all, when kids become so accustomed to multi-tasking and processing large amounts of information simultaneously, they may have trouble focusing on a lecture in a classroom setting. THE VULNERABLE BRAIN ON VIDEO GAMES The very nature of action-entertainment games not only attracts young people with focus, attention, and anger issues (particularly in the case of violent games); it also tends to reinforce these negative behaviors. While a number of companies have tried to create beneficial games for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), they've had limited success. "It's difficult to make games that are exciting for kids who have attention issues, but not so exciting that the game reinforces ADHD-like behaviors," says Dr. Hummer. Instead, kids with ADHD often play action video games to flood their senses with visual stimulation, motor challenges, and immediate rewards. In this environment, the ADHD brain functions in a way that allows these children to focus, so much so that they don't exhibit symptoms, such as distractibility, while gaming. "One of the big issues from a treatment perspective is: how do you tell a kid who has been running the world online and experiencing high degrees of sensory input to function in the real world, which is not very exciting comparatively?" says Dr. Greenfield. The stakes may be higher for a child with anger and behavior issues who finds solace in violent video games. While experts disagree about what (if any) impact violent games have on actual violent behavior, some research shows a link between playing violent games and aggressive thoughts and behavior. For a kid who already has an aggressive personality, that could be a problem, say experts, since video games reward those aggressive tendencies. In fact, two separate studies found that playing a violent video game for just 10"20 minutes increased aggressive thoughts compared to those who played nonviolent games.

Title: Phone on the wall, it was better for us all! Content: Being able to call 911 or call someone you know for help is absolutely safer than being in a dangerous situation alone with no way of contacting the outside world. Even if you don't think phones make things safer, they don't make things any less safe. Therefor, having the phone on the wall didn't necessarily make things any better for anyone.

Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: Mobiles may help people to connect the people around the world.But the disadvantages or the defects of these mobile phones are much greater specially for kids.Using mobiles by kids for various purposes such as playing,chatting...etc. can cause much disaster in these children.This is because these mobiles give out radiations which can cause a great damage to our brain.This can even lead to cancers among the children.So to avoid this children should not be given their own phones until they reach a specific age.

Title: Chidren should not be given phones before the age of 14 Content: I totally agree that children should not be given phones before the age of 14. Nowadays, there are companies which manufacture specially designed mobile phones targeted exclusively to the young children. There are cell phones for kids with pictures of cartoon characters in order to attract the attention of children and increase sales. Kids are a target audience for even mobile phones in today"s age! When children by phones then it has adverse effects on them like: 1.Teachers in schools are complaining of increasing indiscipline in class ever since young children started bringing mobile phones to class. According to these teachers students who bring cell phones to school talk on the phone during class and send messages. They do not pay attention and play on their cell phones during class hours. They thus miss out on lessons being taught and fall behind the other students. Their entire concentration is on the mobile phone and not on their studies. The teachers say that students with mobile phones are uninterested in studies during class hours. Their attention is more on the mobile phone rather than on the blackboard. 2.According to some children who have a cell phone, it is a status symbol for them among the others. The more the phone is modern and stylish, the better because it increases prestige among friends and other schoolmates. Mobile phones have a major effect on children and can bring about undesirable changes in their lifestyle. These children become so obsessed with the phone. They are constantly checking messages, and do not do the important things that young children should do. Instead of spending time playing sports in the fresh air and engaging in other creative activities and hobbies, they spend most of their time on the phone. According to scientists, keeping in continuous contact with people can get addictive. 3.Studies recommend that mobile phones should only be given to children above fourteen years of age. Children below the age of fourteen should not be given mobile phones since their brain is too sensitive to withstand the effects of mobile radiation. Since the tissues in the brain and body are still developing, these radiations can cause cell damage. Due to absorption of radiation, children can have severe health issues. Although adults also get affected by these radiations it will be more severe in children because of increased absorption of these radiation levels. Experts also believe there is a link between childhood cancer and mobile phone usage among children. 4.There are high chances of misuse of the mobile phone, by children who have them. Children may send and receive vulgar messages and pictures. Children can have access to adult websites. 5.We live in a dangerous world where so many incidents of crime against children. Parents of children having mobile phones must take some steps to ensure safety of the child. Parents should warn and keep children aware of the various mobile phone crimes. Sometimes it is possible for a child to get stalked by strangers over the phone. Parents of young children who have a mobile phone must get a post-paid connection and check the cell phone bill when it arrives. I now wait for my opponent to respond and contradict my statements with specific reasons.

Title: cell phone should be allowed in middle school . Content: Fact Set " The average U.S. cellular phone user uses 490 minutes of cellular time per month. Late in 2002, cellular phone use in the U.S. overtook the use of landline service. " As of September 2003, it is estimated that one in three students aged 10 to 19 have a cellular phone. " In a September 2003 poll taken by an online mobile retail company only 10 percent of respondents said it was acceptable to talk on a cellular phone while on school property, including classrooms. Arguments in favor of allowing cellular phones " Cellular phones are necessary for safety. Their use on September 11 demonstrates how helpful they are in allowing parents and students to contact each other in an emergency. " The Columbine attacks and other instances of school violence show how helpful it might be to give students the ability to contact emergency personnel while at school. " Schools can require that students turn off their cell phones during classes, but students would still have them for use in an emergency or to check messages in between classes. " Cellular phones can be set to not ring during class, therefore minimizing the disruption to the learning environment. Regulating cellular phone usage would be better than banning them altogether. Arguments against allowing cellular phones " Cellular phones distract students and teachers by interrupting classes and disrupting the learning environment. " Cellular phones have often been linked with the sale of drugs and other illegal behavior. " Messages can be given to students by contacting the school. There is no need to reach them by cellular phone. " In the event of an emergency, students should focus on following the instructions of school personnel, not using a cellular phone to contact their parents or other relatives. They will have the opportunity to contact their families once the emergency is over. " The odds that a school will be the target of a terrorist attack are much lower than the odds that students will be distracted by using a cellular phone during class or during the school day.

Title: Public Schools Should Allow Texting In Classrooms Content: 1. Yes, I believe that there should be some kind of protection around the room to avoid texting: -There are different devices that the network "people" can get to physically drain the battery to all phones if they are in a certain area. 2. True. You are true to say that, that sentence is false. (: 3. It kinda depends on the teacher/school. but... -Phone taken away -Phone goes to office -Parents have to come get it Thanks :) & Good Luck!

Title: Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand... Content: Clearly, using a mobile phone while driving can be dangerous in some circumstances, but equally it is not dangerous in many situations, for example while the car is at a standstill in gridlocked traffic, while waiting at traffic lights, or on a quiet road with good visibility ahead. Other things in the car can be at least as distracting, such as eating, changing tapes, retuning the radio, arguing with your spouse about directions, trying to stop children squabbling, etc. We should not introduce a law that victimises mobile phone users under all conditions, while ignoring many other causes of accidents.

Title: Science is the greatest integrator of human societies Content: I would like to rebut some points and provide some more in depth information. 1) It is true that if you want to keep up with the society and its fast-changing pace, the ability to use technology is a necessary skill to equip oneself with. If one does not know how to use a simple laptop or mobile phone, he/she will find it hard to survive in today"s society. I understand that by staring at the screen for too long, it will result in illness (as you said), be it on purpose or for work. There is no way to really solve this problem now, but we can"t say so in the near future. People would tend to spend most of their time online and this will result in mental disorders or other illnesses like short-sightedness. Most patients with mental disorders and take in certain drugs or medicine to control their emotions so that they do not get too excited and harm themselves or the people near them. This is only a supportive treatment to the main one, which is to attend counselling. Also, there is this new screen protector that can decrease the impact of staring too long at a screen on the eyes, so short-sightedness can be reduced through technology. Also, the mutations that I mentioned about in my previous argument is genetic mutations caused by the overtaking of drugs and medicine. The mutations caused by radiation is not related to the medicine industry, but I will elaborate further on that. Radiation may cause genetic mutations but if the nuclear plant is well-protected and isolated, the benefits will raise above the risks. Since my first point is related to the medicine industry, I shall only elaborate on how radiation helps to cure people. But, radiation also helps in many other ways, like industrial-wise, agriculture, sterilisation and the environment. Perhaps the most important use of radioactive materials is in medicine. Radiopharmaceuticals"drugs that contain radioactive material"are important in the diagnosis and treatment of many diseases. They can be injected into the body, inhaled, or taken orally as medicines or to enable imaging of internal organs and bodily processes. Millions of people in Australia and around the world have benefited from the diagnostic and therapeutic qualities of radioactive materials. In 2002"03 alone there were over 590 000 nuclear medicine services in Australia. In medical procedures such as cancer diagnosis and treatment, around 500 000 patients have benefited from a radioisotope produced by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. Also, I personally feel that the fact radiation coming out of our phones is destroying the aerial fauna is a little bit exaggerating. Radiation is given off by our phones, but it is a minute amount compared to a nuclear plant. Even though most of the population uses the phone, the radiation given off by our phones (as a scientific report states) have short half-lives and will decrease to background levels within days. Actually, people used to live for a shorter lifespan. Scientists have roughly estimated that our ancestors (in the 1880s) only had an average lifespan of around 39 years, but now, we have a rough average lifespan of 80 years. (you can check out https://www.theatlantic.com... for more information, they have a graph) 2)It is true that unemployment rates have been raising in certain countries, but robots actually do not increase unemployment rates and instead, decrease them! You might be familiar with the Little Giant ladders manufactured by Wing Enterprises, Inc. in Springville, Utah. When the company"s sales increased through infomercials a few years back, strains on the production process appeared. To deal with rising demand, Wing Enterprises acquired welding robot systems from Lincoln. Productivity increased 30% according to Brian Nielsen, an automated fusion technician with Wing. This helped Wing to build a new facility three times its original size and expand from 20 to 400 employees. Furthermore, Crown Equipment, the Greencastle, Indiana-based manufacturer of electric fork trucks, acquired three Lincoln robot systems to make specialized parts that created a new market for the company. This provided the foundation for an expansion that increased the company"s total number of employees from 200 to 335. These examples illustrate that properly implementing technology like robots to support corporate strategy can ultimately lead to reduced costs, improved productivity, operational efficiency- and employment gains. Also, an increase in robots means an increase in people/industries to manufacture them, programmers, designers, and inspectors. This will result in an increase in employment rates as more people will be needed to support this industry. 3) Cars do not blow up that easily, there are several conditions to fulfill before a car can truly blow up. Firstly, the fuel's gas must, in someway, fill up inside the car. And remember: in both cases it have to be in the right concentration. One possible real situation where all of this can happen is a car accident. But note that: if the fuel tank is full, the probability to explode will be lower since it don't have enough space for the oxygen. Therefore, in an accident, it is more likely that the car burn than explode. The most "likely" scenario where car may be in a position where it does something which makes it appear to an outside viewer to have "exploded" (not including an installed explosive device) would be the following: A fire starts in either the engine or the passenger compartments of the car. The heat of the fire melts a fuel line (or whatever may have caused the fire punctures the fuel tank) and the mixture of fuel and air reaches a level where it explodes when exposed to an open flame. This would give the appearance, to an untrained eye, that the car itself exploded. However, only the fuel powering exploded and not the vehicle. This is also fairly rare, as a car fire usually consumes the fuel powering the car or the car is extinguished before its fuel can possibly ignite. It is true that true online platforms, more people might be brainwashed into being a terrorist. But the security web online or in one"s computer prevents people from viewing websites deemed as unsafe. There is no direct way to use science to counter mass massacring with the gun, but the government can maybe impose some laws to stop it??? (your last point is too hard to counter :CCC, because the counters are more of social reasons) If we want something good, there will be a price to pay, and unfortunately science is just like that. (P.S. Thanks for leaving a space! Really appreciate it :D)

Title: Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous Content: Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger. Further, allowing the use of hands free sets has been shown to reduce fatalities, especially in adverse weather conditions through drivers being able to report their status to their loved ones and the local authorities should things become too difficult for them to handle.[1] [1] Stuckey, Mike. “Hands-free phones are lifesavers, study says.” MSNBC. 13/5/2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24580099/#.TtwFTfJVO90

Title: Cell phone bans in cars do not save lives Content: "Cell-phone ban may not reduce car wrecks, study says". Sacramento Business Journal. September 16, 2004 - James Prieger an economist at the University of California Davis. - "In our sample, the true effect on accidents is apparently too small to be statistically significant. That is not to say that we think there is no danger at all from using cell phones while driving."

Title: Cellphone is very useful nowadays.. Content: You posted the argument that cell phones were very useful and you posted as pro, whereas I took the side of con and disagreed with you. I know my place in this debate; the question is, do you? It's hardly professional to attack the opponent; I really hope that you don't let this be your downfall. I will post a link that I used for my arguments, a citation if you will, and I hope that you will read it through and then make up your mind which side I'm on… Or rather, which side you're on. http://www.politicsdaily.com... I urge voters to vote ‘con' for this debate is rather one sided. 1) I have provided fair arguments that my adversary never acknowledged. 2) I have put in a reference, even though it's only one. 3) I have been watching my grammar, and even though no one is perfect it shouldn't be too difficult to see who took more time writing their debate. 4) I have not attacked my opponent, not even once whereas he is calling me a fool. (I think) I urge pro to try a little harder, don't worry we all have to start somewhere. If you'd like then I'd personally give you a couple of tips that I've picked up; all away from the public eye. Please consider my offer.

Title: Kids should have cell phones Content: At the end of the day, it comes down to if you want your kid to have a life outside of the world of a radiating phone that can cause ear cancer :O

Title: Cell phone usage is a leading cause of brain cancer. Content: Recent news articles and media outlets have surmised that cell phone usage is a leading cause of brain cancer. http://www.cnn.com... This debate will prove, one way or another, if the media has a foundation for making the aforementioned claim.

Title: Phone on the wall, it was better for us all! Content: I don't actually own a cell phone, by the way, so I'm not biased here. Cell phone's batteries last for quite awhile. I doubt most power outages last for over 24 hours. Plus, most phones come with car chargers. Power outages don't really affect phone usage at all. I doubt anyone's afraid to sit in their own house without a phone, but if I were walking down to the corner store after dark to pick up a snack, I'd certainly feel safer with a phone in my hand to dial 911 just in case anything happened. Taking advantage of the systems we have set up for safety and convenience isn't codependence. One could argue that computers are just as bad as cell phones, but here you are online.

Title: People should not be so addicted to their cell phones. Content: "Also, people can take their phones with them on cars, but it should certainly not be used, as it is illegal and a very dangerous movement." Con Yeah, but if you watch An inconvenient tooth by Al Gore you will learn that one of the causes of Global Climate change is overpopulation. The dangerous situation that cellphones create in cars is good for the environment.

Title: Banning cell phones in cars Content: Cell phone use in cars impairs driving, causes accidents

Title: Society can't "trust judgement" of drivers with cell phones Content: "Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - "Driving while using cellphones reduces safety margins. Those who assert they know the difference between safe and unsafe use of phones should ask themselves if they are equally confident that the testosterone-loaded 18-year-old rushing from football practice to meet his girlfriend will show the same good judgment when his phone beeps as he approaches in the opposite direction."

Title: technological advancements Content: What's your point. You simply stated both sides of the argument proving both sides of the argument. The question is, do you agree or not? Anyways, here my argument for the pro side. You stated, " The medical advancements caused superbugs that can only be cure by more medical advancements and will only lead to more supebugs. Also , communicating with people you can't see often is nice but most people use their phones for much more than that. People use their phones to text the same person 24/7 which is very unnecessary. People also use their phones to go on social media all the time. They forget how to communicate with people in the real world a lot of the time. Having this much technology has poisoned this generations brains into thinking t at we cannot live without our phones. Most people wouldn't leave their house without their phone. Some technology like light and ovens and heat/cooling are very beneficial to us. But things like cells phones and ipads are very unnecessary and are becoming more detrimental." What in the world are superbugs? You never defined them... What you just stated about superbugs made 0 sense. Since I am the pro side... Our human race would not be able to survive without medical advancements in technology. Look at the Black Plague or the Potato Famine. They are simple sicknesses to cure nowadays but back then the Europeans did not have any medical knowledge or technology. Thats why 2/3 of Europe died during the Black Plague... You have no facts lol. People did not forget how to communicate with other people; people choose not to. All you have to do is put your phone down and go outside. Not that hard. You said light and ovens and heat/cooling are very beneficial. This depends. Some emit radioactive waves. Our cell phone and necessary. How in the world are we going to connect with outer people without them? Without phones, we would be redoing pony express pretty much again. Overall... Your argument is complete bias and opinion ._. and you didn't prove a single thing. You attempted to prove my side too. lol

Title: Debate.org has an unnecessary verification process. Content: Rules: 1. There will be no swearing or derogatory terms directed at either individual, however they may be directed at anything or anyone else.2: Have a basic understanding of American English. You don't need to sound like you graduated with a Ph.D in English, just dnt telk lik3 dis k thx3: Sources are completely optional as this is more of an opinionated debate.4: This is a serious debate on a non-serious topic. Don't half @ss it because it's a "dumb" debateFailure to comply with these rules will result in me calling you a fool. That's about it.--------------------------------------------------------------------- Today is the first time I've heard of this website, and after reading a really bad debate by both sides, I went to cast my vote. To my discouragement though, I was prompted with two preventive measures: I must provide my cell phone number, and complete three debates in order to vote (and I also assume comment as well as other functions that I couldn't seem to do). A CellPhone: Not everyone has one nor does everyone want one. "But PRO, there are more cellphones in the world than there are people!" I realize that, however that doesn't mean everyone has one. Plenty of individuals have more than one cellphone, sometimes one is for work and one for leisure. Other times, people just buy a new cellphone that is more up to date, and they'll just leave their old ones in a drawer somewhere. The amount of phones increases but the amount of users stays relatively the same. Debate.org does not take into account the people without cellphones who still want to participate.CellPhone Privacy: Giving all of our numbers to one collector is a serious risk. A skilled hacker can break into the database and collect these private details. Other companies with personal data collections have been compromised before, and I can say with certainty that it will continue to happen to other companies, perhaps even this one. 3 Debates Requirement: I understand where they're coming from with this, they don't want trolls or bots ruining all of the debates so they have this wall here to prevent that. However, seeing as how debates can last anywhere from three days to six freaking months, it becomes highly inconvenient for people that just want to do something as simple as leave a comment.

Title: It should be illegal for people to use cell phones while driving Content: Contention 1: The original study [1] also says that "Decisions about regulation of such telephones, however, need to take into account the benefits of the technology and the role of individual responsibility." Many drivers with cell phones were able to quickly call emergency services; there are many other unrelated benefits of cell phone usage. According to a large study done by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [2], the risks associated with talking on the phone are no worse than those associated with performing any other similar task in the car, such as eating. If cell phone usage were to be banned, it would be necessary to also ban many other similar tasks. In addition, the cost of banning cell phone usage is rather high [3]: "the cost of banning cell phone use while driving is about $700,000 for each quality-adjusted life year saved. That is 30 times more expensive than achieving the same public health benefit with driver airbags, and ten times more expensive than achieving that benefit by keeping the speed limit on interstate highways at 55 instead of 65 MPH." Contention 2: This is nothing but a statistic; it lacks proof. Many crashes may be caused by cell phone usage, but this is outweighed by several factors. For one, there is the economic cost of preventing potentially crucial calls from being made while in the car. Yes, life is more valuable than simple economic costs, but at what point do we draw the line? Would we be willing to bankrupt a nation just to save one individual? No, and this is exactly why the economic cost is important. Two, we must take into consideration the entire population. There are billions of people who ride in cars every day; only 600,000 or so per YEAR get in an accident, and barely half of those even involve any injury. The cost of cell phone usage is rather small. To help balance my opponent's statistics, it is worth noting that someone with a blood alcohol content of 0.1% (only just above the legal limit for operating an automobile [4]) is five times more likely to get in an accident than someone who is talking on the phone. Contention 3: The core of this argument is very similar to the core arguments of #1 and #2, so my arguments can be cross-applied. But to add something extra, I ask, why is this a reason to ban cell phone usage? There are surely more economical ways to reduce the risk of an accident. Education and encouragement are powerful tools that we ought to utilize. Simply making cell phone use illegal is invasive, excessive and unnecessary, not to mention an infringement on personal liberty. Contention 4: No direct source to this fact has been given and I cannot find the original source, so it is difficult to respond to. However, it has been found that banning cell phones would cause a great deal of economic hardship [3]. Contention 5: This is an example of an appeal to authority; it is fallacious [5], and should be disregarded. Contention 6: False. See rebuttal to contention 2. In conclusion, the side effects of cell phone conversation while driving are minor and the costs of banning cell phone use are great. [1] New England Journal of Medicine <http://content.nejm.org...; [2] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration <http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov...; [3] Harvard Center for Risk Analysis <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...; [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.nizkor.org...

Title: Mobile phones make sure that we are safe Content: Mobile phones mean we are never out of contact with our friends, parents, guardians, or if necessary our school. They provide a way we can quickly contact someone if we are in trouble or are lost. Mobiles are most clearly helpful if caught in a large scale disaster such as a flood or earthquake as we can tell rescuers where we are. But they are also helpful for every day security. With a mobile phone parents know where we are and can be quickly contacted if we feel unsafe somewhere.

Title: Does technology make our lives better. Content: First i would like to extend my framework that was not refuted throughout this debate. (as a reminder) it stated "if the con can prove that on a scale technology does equal to or more damage as it does good in our lives then the con wins this debate. " Because the majority of my opponents last round was copy and pasted from wikipedia i will briefly touch on a few of his closing arguments, and then use the rest of my round to support my own arguments. Back onto his first point he persists with his argument basically saying that weather satellites outweigh the inherent harms of technology (since according to my framework we are putting everything on a scale). Yes, all of the wikipedia articles that were provided by my opponent make these satellites sound pretty cool, and i'm sure that they are useful in the many ways the articles stated, but that is just one aspect of one area of the large world of technology. We could pick little cool technological advances from anywhere and debate the pro's and con's of each one, but that doesn't make sense. My opponent provided a broad resolution so i assumed we were discussing technology as a whole, and these satellites compared to the rest of the huge world of technology does make them relatively insignificant. In his second point he talks about medical technology, but the fact is that much of the things we use medical technology for are caused by technology. Cancer is even caused by technology. Cancer can be caused by Ionizing Radiation, and Chemical Carcinogens. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Obesity is largely due to our adaptation to technology, we don't even need to leave our house anymore if we dont want to. "Technology is like a pencil. The pencil is there for you, but it is you that have to take it, and it is also you that have to decide what to do with it. You could just throw it away, or use it properly. " But people arent using it properly, and the resolution states "technology makes our lives better. " not "technology could make our lives better if we choose to use it properly. " There are always people who are going to use it incorrectly and it will impact us all as a whole. "When I talked about ipods, I was giving it as a general example, covering all the discomforts came from listening to the old-fashioned radio. " I was giving a general example as well. i was in no way referring to your example. At the time nobody was dealing with discomforts from listening to the old-fashioned radio. Nobody knew that there was any better, and that is why the quality of the life you live can't be impacted by technology you dont yet have. My opponent closed with a definition of quality of life that states that there are two aspects to quality of life, physical and psychological. It is for this reason that i find Abraham Maslows Hierarchy of Needs a good basis for us to debate upon, but i will get to that later. My opponent went on to describe how technology helps give us a better quality of life. "1. -Pills that are made with modern technology can help us in getting back appetite and having a balanced diet. 2. -surgeries with better devices based on modern technology keeps us healthy. 3. -technology used in security reasons such as door locks and such can save us from both physical and mental pain. Your close friends or relatives might be attacked from invaders and robbers, causing you a mental pain, and your friend a physical/mental pain if we did not have modern technology to keep us safe. 4. -Again, surgeries and pills can cure diseases. " My opponent stated no sources but i will go off of his arguments anyway. first pills made with modern technology to help us diet are only necessary because of our rising obesity issue that is directly linked to technology. Furthermore, these pills are an example of a short cut that technology has made for us. No need to lose weight by actual dieting and getting exercise, we have pills that can do it for us. second, he talks about surgeries, but once again many surgeries that we have are given only because technology exists. third he talks about security with locks and everything, but technology has also created a way to pick those locks four was basically the same as one and two. On to my case I. Addiction to technology We have become addicted to technology, and can no longer live without it. My opponent never refuted this fact and accepted it as an inherent danger to our society. extend my first point II. Maslows Hierarchy of Needs. My opponent never refuted this either. However, just to reiterate my argument. Maslow gave us 5 needs for the quality of our lives to be good. he covers both physical and mental aspects that my opponent used for his definition of the quality of life in his third round. Technology does support or fulfill, any of the 5 needs, and actually harms some of them. extend my second point. III. The Inherent Harms of Technology I gave several good examples, such as cyber terrorism, nuclear warfare, obesity, online predators, and technology adaptation throughout this round as harms of technology, but i have one more specific example of technology gone wrong. I dont know how many people have heard about the Chernobyl disaster, and it would be difficult to summarize it in a debate. Basically in the Soviet Union they buried a bunch of their nuclear weapons equipment and such in a big hole with a concrete shelter, the shelter cracked and there is an underground lake below where they buried it and "if the wall of the reactor building or the roof of the shelter were to collapse, then large amounts of radioactive dust and particles would be released directly into the atmosphere, resulting in a large new release of radioactivity into the environment. " which could kill us all. . http://en.wikipedia.org... and that is only part of the problem with Chernobyl, but it proves that technology is a double edged sword that can do a lot of harm even though it provides convenience. In conclusion, technology is not what improves our quality of life or in other words makes it better, and even if it were, the bad that comes with technology is at the least equal if not outweighs the good technology provides.

Title: Why cell phones should not be allowed in classrooms Content: Yes there is a possibility of the phone's being dangerous during an emergency as they could sound off during a break in but a solution for that is to have a rule in the class stating that when one enters the classroom their cellphones need to be turned to silent. With the research projects , yes students might goof off and go on their social media pages rather than researching for their assignment, but in the end they'd be the ones hurting their grade. It's on them to do the work or goof off.