Question: Is Mobile Phone Radiation Hazard-Free?

They actually decrease the likelihood of brain tumors. Contrary to the notion that cell phone radiation can harm the brain, some studies have indicated the opposite[[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 emitted by cell phones has been found to decrease the likelihood of a user developing glioma and meningioma.

This student says that the decision to bring a cell phone to school is still in contention. Therefore, this student knows about the distractions, addictions, the cheating, taking pictures, and the theft that can be caused by bringing cell phones to school. I'm an advocate for bringing cell phones to school. However, in the classrooms is a totally different matter. One can bring a cell phone to school without using it in class. If teachers and school personnel were worried about CHEATING, PICTURE TAKING, DISTRACTIONS, and THEFT. They would enforce their school rules so the infractions of these rules would not happen. I do not think teachers can enforce laws about addiction. I was stumped on how to counter that one. However, I do not think that students use cell phones enough in class to suffer from cell phone addiction inside of the classroom, but rather outside of the classroom. This can be blamed on the students parents. It is the job of the parent not the student to enforce the safety and the rearing of your child to not be addicted to cell phones as much. Cell phone use in schools has many advantages. With the help of cell phones, students can be in touch with their parents, relatives and friends. This can prove to be very useful in time of emergencies or when parents wish to know if their child is doing fine or not. With the help of cell phones, students can inform their parents about their changed programs or if they are coming home late. http://www.buzzle.com... I know that cell phones and school can coexist because I went to a school that allowed us to bring cell phones to school as long as we did not use the phones inside of class.

According to modern mom some parents do not provide their child with cellphones for the same reason other parents give their child a phone to be a quick phone call away, but if that is the case how could the child figure out their own problems? Of they are old enough to think they could carry around a phone and be like everyone else they should be able to handle the minuscule problems that come with everyday life not call mom or dad every five seconds for something. In the case of an actual emergency the child could have an alternative phone that only calls numbers like 911 or calls for a fire. Giving the child problem solving opportunities could be a good way to keep a teen or child to grow.

For my rebuttal, I will be quoting line by line. "I will say students can bring their cell phones to school, but not in the classroom, if they are given permission to." When a student is bringing their device to school but does not bring it in to the classroom, what purpose does the device serve? The resources present on the phone are being wasted. "I choose no because today there are debates if students should bring it to school or not, but this majors mostly on classroom and learning topics since a lot say that students get distracted by devices or they can't learn by this or that with device in their possession. " Why is it that a cell phone would prevent the learning process from happening? As I see it, a phone is a catalyst rather than a deterrent. I would also like to take a look at the wording used: "they CAN'T" Can't is a contraction for cannot which is suggesting that the students lose the capacity to learn because of the possession of a phone. This is a major stretch of the truth. The possession of a phone is quite the opposite and would allow the students to research information which they cannot recollect in order to allow the student to learn the information and prevent them from falling behind. "I am saying that they can't bring in in the classroom, and they can just put in their locker until they are able to get it, and schools should tell students if they have an emergency use the phone in the school office if they need to call someone or their parents, or if they forgot their homework, project, or their stuff, come prepared, especially in high school, cause no one has chances." 1) Until it is proven that phones are a detriment to the learning environment, placing phones in a locker is a serious waste of materials which could have applications in the classroom. 2) If there is an emergency, students with phones can use a text message through their cell phones to allow rapid communication without the need to leave the class or disrupt the class in any way. 3) The occasions of homework, missing projects, or missing materials is mostly irrelevant with the exception of materials. Say for example, and English student forgets their textbooks and instead pulls up the Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet on their phone. The phone has allowed the student to supplement their phone for the missing materials in question and has proven the cell phone to be an asset to the school.

The conclusion that it might not hurt somebody is utterly irresponsible. Would you speed too? Because it might not hurt somebody. That's the thought that we as people get when we are rushing to and fro. It's the habit that we make of things. Wearing that little piece of polyester can be life saving during an accident. People usually turn their lives around after an accident and one of the things they do is wear their seatbelt.

Good day Mr. Patrick and thanks for considering my parameters. I would like to do the rebuttal on this cross-examination part. 1.)Lazy students used to not go to the library. Fewer sources were requested for papers. Students using calculators are using them to do math their parents were never taught. Technology makes it possible to do more. We can get more from libraries because there are a lot of books in it while if you search in the internet (like google or Encarta), there is no credible source because it is internet while books there are authors. It is better to work than to depend on technology and be lazy. Calculators are one of the reasons why children become lazy, before, people use long multiplication, addition, rooting etc. but now that we have calculators, we become lazy and depend on it. Some math problems aren't solved by calculators (long divisions or polynomial division), so if we are used or dependent to calculators, we get more difficult in learning and answering 2.)All light is a form of radiation. Working outside in the sun will also harm your vision. Libraries rely on technology too. The modern printing press makes books affordable. The lighting system is usually some kind of modern electrical system. Compare the radiant energy of the two. I refer this one to students/kids, do kids work outside? No. they just play outside, but not so long, but if a child uses a computer, he is focused in radiation which can lead to visual problems. Show me a proof that working outside and using a computer share the same amount of radiation. 3.)What are your sources for this magical 120 number? 120 years has never been the typical life span, in spite of what the bible might say. Even you yourself can observe this. Have you noticed that a lifespan of a person gets lower and lower since the technology started? Bible says that persons live up to the age of 500+. I meant the present day (1940's) they reach the age of 120+ but as years passed by, it went lower to 74 (2007 estimate) 4.)Not every activity we do as students is going to be education. We've found ways to waste our time for thousands of years. For example, we've known how to produce alcohol for thousands of years. The negative effects of going to a "bad" website are highly over rated. "Synthetic food" is still food. We eat a lot of processed food that is less healthy, but in most cases our food came from the same farm type establishment as always. We are more unhealthy on account of the great abundance of food available. Alcohol is produced in the present times, how can you make a liquid of different solution that form like a sanitizer? Obviously, thru technology. It is not "over rated" because it is usually the tendency of teens to go thru, they can gather information from their friends or thru curiousity. "processed food" means that it came from a machinery, so it is technology that brought the synthesized food which are hazardous to our health. A very popular example is softdrinks. Studies show that a glass of it can clean a bath room with its acidity. And with that I end my speech.

Students should have phones-part one-School shootings-saves time in an emergency- students typically use an extra number in dialing, so this will shave time off the calling time. 911 is a little faster than 1-911. Students should be able to have them for this reason-source- My school

If the topic really was that students should be allowed to possess cell phones, I will ask the opponent for why they have put up two sources that have to do with using cell phones in class. Obviously, Pro misunderstood the concept of the topic he was trying to assert, and then came back later to say that I have misunderstood. I only have gone along with Pro's sources as the basis of my opinion. Thank you, everyone.

The students should be able to decide if they want to use there time texting. If they want a good or bad education that is their decision. So banning it are only going to make it sneaky and bad.

Life survived well before we ever had technology, now it seems like teenagers need it every day, but did you know about the side-effects? Social media has greatly become more popular over the years, thanks to teenagers gaining more and more technology. There have been studies done that show social media in a negative light. Although many teens today find social media interesting and fun, it is the root of many problems for teenagers.

Also, I never meant that students shouldn't be able to have them in school, I meant that students shouldn't be able to use them during the class. Well first of all, my opponent admitted that cell phones do have a tendency to distract and annoy other students in the classroom. And yes, they can be used for safety; after class. I'm pretty sure students are nice and safe in the classroom. Now, this is under certain circumstances. I don't think that a student is going to get in trouble for using their phone if they got mugged. Now I know there are some of us who will follow the rules, but lets face it, most students will abuse the power of being able to use their phone in class, whether it be for orginazation, internet access, or just recording lectures. They will look at videos, text, take videos or pictures, but most of all not learn or pay attention. As to the matter of phones saving the environment, one tree makes about 80,500 sheets of paper, so that one 90 sheet notebook that you would use to take notes doesn't really make an impact on the "environmental deficit ". Furthermore, my opponent said that cellphones can help students take notes. My opponent stated that "every penny counts in these tough economic times. " Well lets see, an average "smartphone", as my opponent said, costs anywhere from $200-$500, plus the plan and contract, another $100, which overall is about $400 as compared to a notebook and mechanical pencil for ohh, about $3.99 altogether. Okay, my opponent said that using the internet during class can help them not miss parts of the lecture. Now to me this doesn't make sense. How can you be looking up a "big word" and still be attently listening to your proffessor? Now, some phones do provide internet access. I do not know if this subject in the debate is a good thing or bad thing because it has the potential to be a bad thing, so my opponent can't use this as an argument because this can be a good or a bad thing depending on the student using the Internet. Okay now to the calculator. The thing with the calculator is that not everybody will need a calculator for their class(es). If your teacher gives you a problem, I'm pretty sure that they want to see if you know the material, not your calculator. So I dont know about you, but to me it seems like common sense that con is the victor. I have disproved all of his statements and believe that you will make the right choice when it comes to the victor of this debate.


Question: Is Mobile Phone Radiation Harmless?

Cell Phone Radiation: Safe for Human Health?
(As we reach the final round of this debate, I commend my opponent for a well-researched argument. Let's shift our focus from the cancer and tumor discussion to other health risks that cell phone radiation may pose, excluding cancer. These include sleep quality, fetal development, and pacemaker function. Firstly, let's discuss the impact on sleep quality. It's not just the bright light from our screens that can harm our eyes; radiation from cell phones can also lead to insomnia, headaches, and confusion. Moreover, it may disrupt the production of melatonin, the hormone that regulates our body's internal rhythms. Regarding fetal development, the BabySafe Project, an awareness campaign by Grassroots Environmental Education and Environmental Health Trust, highlights independent scientific research linking wireless radiation exposure during pregnancy to neurological and behavioral issues in offspring, akin to ADHD in children. Lastly, the effects of cell phone radiation on pacemakers are a significant concern. Pacemakers are small devices that assist those with heart conditions, such as irregular heartbeat and heart block, by delivering electrical impulses to regulate the heart's rhythm. The interference caused by cell phone radiation can lead to the pacemaker's failure to deliver necessary pulses, deliver them irregularly, or ignore the heart's natural rhythm, potentially resulting in fatal consequences for the user. Given the evidence presented on the impact of cell phone radiation on brain cancer and tumors, fetal development, sleep quality, and pacemakers, I stand firm in my belief that cell phone radiation is detrimental to human health. Thank you for your attention.)

Well, after I set up all my data, I took an orange, poured some of it onto a remote, and nothing happen - I then got a bigger electronic device, poured another instance of orange juice onto it, and it started to short-circuit into a meltdown. You're the remote, not the bigger electronic device, so I can't smoke you out with vitamin C. Therefore you automatically lose for being used by fat lazy folks.

No. It is not important. What are important are things like shelter, food and drink.

So many people have asking me that does the bad environment is causing because of the modern technology? The answer is not really or strongly No! The topic is going to be telling by 3 main reason. First, the pollution. There are so many kinds of the pollution like: air pollution, or noise pollution. Next, because of the tall building. As we can see now a day there are a lot of tall building like skyscraper. After the smoke blow up to the are that are near the building the smokes are not going to leave away. Then, the construction of some industry are build near the city. This is the very important cause that make the environment is bad. As I said " The smokes that come from the industry seems like a very terrible things that we can't believe.

"Being trapped in a car can make it hard to breathe but it does not hinder someones breathing over the course of their lifetime. The time scale of the damge is not really relevant to this debate. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Car crashes are unexpected and most of the time unwanted. No one gets in their car and says "I want to cause a car crash today," but people do intentionally light up a cigarette. Most of the time unwanted? And yet people, knowing that there is a very real possibility that they could be injured or even die, still get into their cars and drive. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "So no one actually knows when or if their going to die in a car crash but they know very well that they will obtain some sort of health problems from smoking." Not everyone experiences health problems, just like not everyone who drives a car gets injured. But there is still a risk and it is the job of the individual to weigh the risks and decide for themselves. Or in the case of a child, it is the responsibility of the parent to explain the dangers of smoking. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "What exactly is the service that is being provided by the cigarette" I am talking about the relief that a person feels when they have a cigarrete, the sense of calm after they light up. I'm not saying that the benefits outweigh the risks or that smoking is right, I am saying that again, it is up to the individual to weigh the pros and cons of a product. It is no business of the government. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "There are pros and cons to EVERYTHING in this world, but the cons of those things should not be compared to the devistation that is brought on by smoking. You can choke while eating a strawberry. Does that mean strawberry ads should be banned? No. A person can die from a football injury. Does that mean the game of football should be illegal? No. I'm not saying that there aren't other things on this planet that effect the lives of humans, I am saying however that cigarette ads are putting a positive image in the minds of young human beings. An image that should not even be portrayed to begin with." You do not seem to understand my point. You are arguing that because cigarettes are harmful, they should not be advertised. I am saying that anything can be harmful and again it is not up to the government to decide if a person should be subjected to an advertisement. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "What good can possibly come of smoking? Does it actually make one happy? Or relax them? Maybe at the time of use but in the long run, there are no positive outcomes to smoking a cigarette." So what if cigarretes don't always work out in the long run. In the long run, we all die, civilizations fall, and whole generations are forgotten. Why does this warrant the govt. to to censor tobacco companies right to advertize?

As much as I might enjoy demonstrating why young goats should not use microwave ovens in aquatic environments necessary to have groups of fish I shall try and restrain myself. Unless of course that was the debate my opponent was seeking. Definitions: Electronics [1]: (1) A branch of physics that deals with the emission, behavior, and effects of electrons and with electronic devices. (2) Electronic components, devices, or equipment. I'll assume that we're talking about the second definition here but that still leaves us with a ridiculously broad field. For the purposes of this debate we should narrow the definition the "electronic devices typically used by minors". Thus, my opponent won't argue the benefits of having schools upgraded for the electric light and I won't try and demonstrate that school board budgets might be strained by installing an LHC. More thoroughly, we should discuss why the electronic devices should be used in schools rather than simply permitting their presence. School[2]: (1) An organization that provides instruction as (a) an institution for the teaching of children (b) college, university... (2) A large number of fish or aquatic animals of one kind swimming together. Ignoring the entertainment value in the second definition, we are still left with a wide variety of types of "schools" including colleges, universities and schools of thought. For the purposes of this debate we should stick to definition (1a) and should probably restrict the discussion further to public schools as private schools have a different standards and rules too varied to properly cover. If my opponent would prefer to use different definitions I'd appreciate clarification in the next round. This still leaves a variety of electronic devices to cover: Entertainment This is the most easily dismissed category of electronics. Personal entertainment devices in the school environment serve only to distract. They distract not just the child but other children in the same classroom. Their only possible use is improving hand-eye coordination and in an age where childhood obesity and inactivity is rising [3,4] and attention spans are falling [5,6] there are more fit and active ways to achieve this. Children get more than enough electronic entertainment at home so school policies should encourage children to leave their DS at home. Communication Many parents equip their children with mobile phones for safety and basic communication needs. These devices should be allowed in schools but should be kept off during class time. Texting and talking on mobile phones is obviously disruptive in the classroom [7] amongst other perils. The most obvious problems are poor grammar and decreased information retention [8]. Computing Personal computers are one form of electronic device that should not only be allowed but required in schools. In the information age, computer literacy is a requisite for most jobs above the grade of fry cook and should be taught as part of all school curriculums [9]. Back in the day schools taught cursive writing and long division. Today's schools need lessons on proper search techniques and internet privacy. However, these lesson should be taught on school computers. Having children bring their own computers causes a host of problems including: - Theft, loss damage. Problems that will be familiar to anybody who remembers how they treated their textbooks. - Disadvantages to underprivileged students due to the expense of the electronics and the software. - Classes become difficult to impossible to teach when different students all have different computers, operating systems and software. - Teachers have to police a variety of non-class computer issues from minor distractions through cyber-bullying, pornography, phishing scams and sexual predators [10]. As such, computer literacy should be taught at school using school computers. While there are exceptions for students with disabilities who need computers [11], in all other cases student computers become redundant for educational purposes. Student computers should be left at home to prevent damage, distraction and a host of other problems. Conclusions There are few reasons to allow students to bring electronic devices to school and, with a few special exceptions that prove the rule, no good reason to allow their use in school. Sources [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.cdc.gov... [4] http://www.cdc.gov... [5] http://www.parentingscience.com... [6] https://www.apa.org... [7] http://www.education.com... [8] http://everydaylife.globalpost.com... [9] http://www.commerce.gov... [10] http://www.digitalbookworld.com... [11] http://ldatschool.ca...

My opponent has attempted a refutation but has failed to adequately do so. I will point out these flaws I will quotate and underline my opponents statements.Flaw 1-"Also, I never meant that students shouldn't be able to have them in school, I meant that students shouldn't be able to use them during the class."My opponent is using the red hearing fallacy here. The resolution of this debate is cell phones should be allowed in school. Since the resolution is as stated above it is what we are going to debate. It seems my opponent is trying to change the subject because he no longer wants to assert the resolution. In witch case means he drops his case. Logically if you are not arguing for the resolution then you must be against it or have no opinion and we can not be servants to two masters so his opinion is either support the resolution or not. We cannot discuss what was meant to be said but exactly what the resolution is. When he made this debate he clicked the yes when it sad is this what you want to debate. So we cannot change the subject now .So I must ask my opponent is he against this resolution or not because as of this moment his position is not clear and/or contradictory.Flaw 3- "my opponent admitted that cell phones do have a tendency to distract and annoy other students in the classroom."My opponent is using the strawman fallacy here. I said that they can be a distraction but a positive one. Never did I say they annoy other students or distract other students.(Please refer to my second paragraph of round 2) It is obvious though that you think so. Typically students have their phones on silent unless teachers allow them to which is rare. Of course there is the argument based on induction that a student might forget to turn their phone on silent before they enter the class room. If it goes of what does he student do? He quickly turns it off. What does the teacher do? Usually nothing because the teacher knows the student will quickly turn it off to prevent any further disturbance or get the phone confiscated. So then I have to ask how are cells phones an annoyance or distraction that detriments the learning environment if the unlikely possibility of a student forgetting to turn their phone off is corrected quickly? Flaw 4- "And yes, they can be used for safety; after class."My opponent fails to realize that emergencies of security, and medical proportion can happen during school hours. Crime and medical emergencies don't hold themselves off until a student gets out of school. He dos not realize that a student could be by themselves somewhere in the school and stop breathing or have a life threatening emergency. If no one is around, how is that student going to get help? The student having that cell phone on him in school could be the difference of life and death for that student. So cell phones can be used for safety before, during and after class hours.Unclear point 1- "I don't think that a student is going to get in trouble for using their phone if they got mugged."Are you suggesting that a majority of students get mugged for their phones? and are you ignoring the fact that some if not most schools allow students to have cell phones?Flaw 5- "Now I know there are some of us who will follow the rules, but lets face it, most students will abuse the power of being able to use their phone in class, etc....Of course people are going to text etc... But does it really mater if students text or not? Here are the possibilities; It is possible to multitask texting and paying attention in class. I've done it my whole school career and I obtained great grades. How is this possible? I think it is the status quo that in class we take notes. Typically the teacher puts notes on the board etc.. If a student takes notes efficiently enough then they will have pauses in between the notes or after the notes to text. It is also possible that the students parents may need to get in touch with them during class for family emergencies and etc.. A student may be suicidal and need to talk to a friend for help. However If a student makes the stupid decision to text instead of paying attention or finding someway to mutitask it is there own fault. But, There are many things students will do when they don't care about class like drawing on paper, desks,pencils, and talking. So then should we then not allow students to use paper because it is possible that they may draw instead of pay attention? NO. Should We not allow students to sit in desks because they may possibly draw on desks instead of pay attention? NO should we ban pencils, and ban talking on the school grounds? NO. Do you see my point here? Im trying to assert that yes there are students that are not going to pay attention, that don't care about school and are going to do something else. We should not punish the majority for the disregard of the minority of that majority. It's just not fair nor is the positive prospects of cell phones worth loosing.Flaw 6- "so that one 90 sheet notebook that you would use to take notes doesn't really make an impact on the "environmental deficit "It seems my opponent doesn't recognize 90 as a number nor did he complete his math? 90 sheets of paper which he proposed times the number of students in your average high school ( my high school had about 1500 students) of course only counting students with cell phones who use the note taking feature multiplied by the number of schools available is a huge number my friend more than millions of trees can be saved this way. So how is this not helping the environment?Flaw 7- "My opponent stated that "every penny counts in these tough economic times." Well lets see, an average "smartphone", as my opponent said, costs anywhere from $200-$500, etc... This figure is based on the completely flawed assumption that at one time everyone is buying knew phones and plans. False. So ignoring the data my opponent proposed, my plan is about 80 a month. Of course that is more than pencil and paper. However I will partially accept this statement because a cell phone bill is more expensive over time then buying paper and pencil. His figure of the cost of paper and pencil is flawed as well because costs varies. However my opponent ignored everything else said in that paragraph. Cell phones can help students stay organized, keep up with assignments, act as a study aid during free periods, And decrease the strain on the environment witch is irrefutable. (Im condensing now due to limited characters remaining.)My opponent also made a statement about the recordings. What I proposed is looking up a word on your phone is faster than looking it up in the dictionary. Of course one may not pay full attention while looking up the word on the phone but neither would they while looking in the dictionary if not more with the dictionary. SO my opponents rebuttal to this point is invalid. He also attempts to say access to the Internet can possibly be bad so I can't use the point. That's not a good reason to not respond to my claim. Yes cell phones have good and bad. Pro and Con are presenting good and bad. Thus debating. It almost seems like my opponents logic is saying, " since this point is debatable then we should not debate it." That is not logical at all. There is no denying that some schools don't have Internet access. So then students who have access on their phones should be allowed to use their phones to help them and possibly the class in school. About calculators, Con assumed all teachers don't want students to use calculators. My algebra, advanced functions, geometry etc classes allowed it. So obviously teachers do allow students to use calculators. Yes some students won't use them. That proves nothing.As we can see con has made many flawed statements, and assumptions in this debate. All of my contentions are sound while cons case has been debunked. If we re-evaluate this debate, logically I believe it is justified to vote on pros behalf.

Introduction: In this debate I am going to be exploring the idea of Nihilism as it relates to policy making. Specifically, my stance is that it is foolish to suggest than any particular decision 'should' be made because there is no legitimate basis on which to determine what 'should' and 'should not' be done. My stance is that the administrators of can make any policy they want about cell phone use. It does not matter. My opponent has proposed that there could be an accident would require the use of a phone to resolve. Why does this mean that it is necessary to have cell phones? My opponent first has to demonstrate that resolving accidents is favorable, which I do not accept. It is quite true that a person could die as a result of not getting medical attention quickly enough. Is it unfavorable for a person to die? I do not believe so. My opponent will have to demonstrate why the death of a person is necessarily a bad thing. There is also disregarding the extreme unlikelihood of a potentially fatal accident occurring, compounding with the extreme unlikelihood that a cell phone would be necessary to resolve this problem. The odds of the scenario my opponent has described actually occurring are astronomically low. Without evidence, there is no reason to believe that a human being being badly hurt or killed is a bad thing. The odds of this happening and requiring a cell phone to resolve favorably are incredibly low anyway.

An almost perfect argument. The thing is that there are a few flaws. First of all the car crashes occur only once every thirteen minutes not once every fourteen seconds.http://www.car-accidents.com... Okay now on to the subject of things that happen every 60 seconds. The thing I don't get is why you would list all of this because it is pretty much just a whole bunch of people buying things. The only bad things were the hacking and the e waste. On to the point of the hacking. If the people get hacked they will soon know how to stop that particular type of hack. Now unto the point of e waste. The thing is that about 99% of all e waste is recyclable. http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au... The other things I would like to acknowledge are the lightning strikes. Some people do get killed by lightning strikes but there are those who do not. The people who do not get killed are hurt but the thing is that they'll recover pretty soon depending on how fatal the strike was. http://www.emergencydude.com... Another flaw which I'd like to point out is that if people don't eat until they're starved, they'll die. If they eat too much on the other hand they'll die too. http://wiki.answers.com... http://wiki.answers.com... Now unto the smoking part. For statement number one and two the people could just be uneducated. In some cases being slimmer does mean being either stronger or healthier than before. You are right on number four but then there are those who really don't care if it is good or not, just as long as it makes them look 'cool'. You are also right on number five. Thank you Angrymen.

Modern technology makes a person sluggard So sluggard that we now have communication at the speed of light, can travel the world in a day, and have created machines that have the manufacture of almost everything faster. 2.) Pollution, Global warming etc. is done by modern technology Global Warming would also be caused by fires. Pollution and global warming is caused by people. We're at fault. When someone is murdered, we don't punish the murder weapon, we punish the murderer. 3.) Influence has worse effects on children and adults Most children have exposure to education which they never would have had a chance to receive any kind of education if it weren't for technology. Most of us would be isolated in rural settings working as farmers. 3.a) radiation from computers and cellphone A very limited amount of damage is caused by these devices. People used to die before we ever had technology. 3.b) if you text through a cellphone you do not type on the cellphone, The first written language in Western Civilization was known as Cuneiform. It was incredibly complicated and purposefully designed to be difficult to learn. While there is much to be said for the written language, language will always be fluid. Cuneiform died out because it was burdensome to learn. Cellphone texts often include language which is abbreviated because it is more time consuming to type out proper grammar, also many texts have a character limit. 3.c) age meter goes dow This is simply not true. The average life expectancy of a person has dramatically increased in the last three hundred years during the development of our modern technology. 4.) Synthetic foods which harm us are produced through technology If you slaughtered a goat using a sharp rock, and ate all of the goat's fat, it would be just as unhealthy if you ate a fat that was derived from corn oil and then processed into a twinki. Fat is fat, nutrients is nutrients. We become unhealthy because we choose to eat and drink unhealthy things. There are many people who maintain a healthy lifestyle while still eating processed foods. Points that I successfully defended till the end: 1.) Technology adds the entropy and makes students lazy Technology has enabled students to learn beyond conventional means. You get to practice your English via the internet. Points that I successfully clashed: 1.) The fault does not lie within the tool but with the user. So, you were saying that it was the problem of humans that made technology turn this way Yes, people are at fault. If we are smart enough to recognize we're hurting ourselves while not being wise enough to stop hurting ourselves, I really don't think its ethical to blame technology for this. 2.) They were dependent on technology since the start of everything. Early years, the loss of technology resulted to their demises. No, this was not my statement. Civilizations rose and fell before modern technology came to light. The collapse of a nation can happen without the influence of technology. If civilization, or society, or a nation fails now, it happened because of poor leadership and external pressures, not because of technology. 4.) We owe it all to technology We even own our debate to technology. Thanks for the debate, I'm sorry I was not quicker about responding to your arguments. I get very preoccupied with real life.

Should Cell phones be allowed in schools


Question: Is Mobile Phone Radiation Harmless?

Cell Phone Radiation is Generally Safe for Human Use
Indeed, cell phones and other portable devices emit radiofrequency energy, which falls under the category of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation is divided into ionizing and non-ionizing types. Ionizing radiation, such as that produced by x-rays, has been shown to elevate the risk of cancer and brain tumors. Therefore, while cell phone radiation can potentially have adverse effects and complications, these are mostly a concern with prolonged and excessive exposure.

Nuclear reactors are very dangerous and threaten the safety of human lives. Radiation caused by the nuclear reactors there are two. First, direct radiation, which occurs when the radiation emitted by radioactive directly on the skin or the human body. Second, indirect radiation. Indirect radiation is radiation that occurs through contaminated food and drink radioactive substances, either through air, water, or other media. Both the radiation directly or indirectly, will affect organ function through cell-cell formation. Organs that are sensitive to and become damaged. Cells of the body when contaminated radioactive description as follows: the occurrence of ionizing radiation can damage the relationship between the atomic cell with molecules of life, can also alter the condition of the atom itself, alter the original function of the cell or even to kill him. In principle, there are three due to radiation can affect cells. First, the cell will die. Second, there was a doubling of the cell, can eventually lead to cancer, and the third, damage can occur in the egg or testes, which will start the process of deformed babies. In addition, also cause burns and an increasing number of cancer patients (thyroid and cardiovascular) as much as 30-50% in Hryvnia, respiratory inflammation, and inhibition of the respiratory tract, as well as psychological problems and stress resulting from radiation leaks. There are some latent dangers of nuclear power plants that need to be considered. First, human error (human error) which may cause leakage, which is a very broad range of radiation and be fatal for the environment and living things. Secondly, one of which is generated by nuclear power plants, namely Plutonium has a very powerful warhead. Plutonium Because of this, one of the raw material for making nuclear weapons. Hiroshima city destroyed simply by 5 kg of plutonium. Third, the waste generated (Uranium) can affect genetics. In addition, nuclear power emits radioactive radiation that are dangerous to humans. THINK IT OVER! NUCLEAR REACTOR IS HARMFUL!

Hi drakie.bro, I will be debating with you.As a student too, I myself have impulses to use my phone during school hours. However, I know the appropriate time to use them. Using phones as calculators is fine, but like you said-students sneak their phones behind their teacher's back. It won't be useful if students keep using it for entertainment. Students like to fool around with their phones. Encouraging the use of phones isn't going to help keep students on task and focused.

Toxicology reports in many organisms provide evidence that suggests GMO's from multiple manufacturers are safe to consume. The notion that there is simply not enough long term data is false. The very few studies out there that claim GMO's are unsafe are flawed, from choosing mice that die of cancer in normal environments, to lack of validation methods, and of course just bad experimental design. To date not a single person has died as a result of consuming genetically modified food or acquired any disease.

Alright, if we're "changing" rather than "harming" our environment, are we changing for the better, or doing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people? According to Associated Content, "it means devastation to one's home from nearby blasts. It means flooding of childhood homes possibly caused by valley fills. Environmentalists and Friends of Coal speak heatedly and it seems as if there will never be a compromise on the issue." It is also known that coal mining has led to many serious health problems. Coal mining and production has led to elevated hospitalization for chronic pulmonary disorders and hypertension. Rates of mortality, lung cancer, chronic heart disease, lung disease, and kidney diseases are also increased to to coal mining procedures, whether it be mountaintop removal, or otherwise. Coal mining also releases hazardous amounts of methane and produce coal dust that gets inhaled by workers causing serious, life threatening health problems such as black lung, according to "Death By Coals." According to A recent study performed by the WVU Institute for Health Policy Research and Washington State University, "people merely living in coal mining communities with no direct contact with the mines themselves, were at higher risk for kidney disease and chronic lung and heart diseases. In fact they were found to be 70 times as likely to develop kidney disease and 64 times as likely to develop chronic lung diseases such as emphysema. Death rates in coal mining communities are higher than in other parts of the country, even among non-mine workers" And this is somehow beneficial? I think not. My opponent makes the argument that through coal mining, many jobs are opened. Every coal mining job creates another 5 to 8 jobs somewhere in the economy However, to replace coal mining with other means of producing energy wouldn't lower job opportunities, because according to the Associated Press, it would be replaced with one of the alternative industries. So, in the end, using other means of providing energy would be MUCH more beneficial.

Technology in general is highly beneficial. A long time ago, we didn't have microwaves or cars or video games. To cook, they used fire made by rubbing sticks together, which takes a while. Now we have ovens which make the fire for us. Instead of horses, we can ride cars, which go faster and are much easier to control. Now why do you think technology is bad?

First of all, cell phones can distract students of any age in class from learning.

I will begin with my claim and will follow with evidence. Claim: Smoking cigarettes is horrible for your body and the body's of people around you and therefore it should be banned. Evidence: I will begin by using the site . http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov... for my evidence because it is a government site and therefore should be very reliable. point 1. 1 in every 5 deaths in the USA are caused by smoking, this is insane that means that 1/5 of the USA's deaths are from smoking, an obvious reason to ban it. point 2. Smoking has many long term affects including but not limited to cancer,lung problems,speech difficulties and diabetes. To address the risks you take by smoking observe the picture below . http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov... point 3: Ever seen the videos like this . http://www.youtube.com... notice that these are made by the center of disease control. These videos are showing what happens to the people that are lucky enough not to die from smoking but it is hard to say they are lucky at all with the condition they are left in. point 4: Smoking is highly addictive meaning if you just smoke 1 or 2 times there is a very high chance you will become addicted and dependent, please take the time to read this exert from . http://www.cancer.org... "Regular use of tobacco products leads to addiction in many users. Nicotine is a drug found naturally in tobacco, which is as addictive as heroin or cocaine: When taken in small amounts, nicotine creates pleasant feelings that make the smoker want to smoke more. It acts on the chemistry of the brain and central nervous system, affecting the smoker"s mood. Nicotine works very much like other addicting drugs, by flooding the brain"s reward circuits with dopamine (a chemical messenger). Nicotine also gives you a little bit of an adrenaline rush " not enough to notice, but enough to speed up your heart and raise your blood pressure. Nicotine reaches the brain within seconds after taking a puff, and its effects start to wear off within a few minutes. This is what most often leads the smoker to light up again. If the smoker doesn"t smoke again soon, withdrawal symptoms start and get worse over time. The typical smoker takes about 10 puffs from each cigarette. A person smoking a pack per day gets about 200 "hits" of nicotine each day. Smokers usually become dependent on nicotine and suffer physical and emotional (mental or psychological) withdrawal symptoms when they stop smoking. These symptoms include irritability, nervousness, headaches, and trouble sleeping. The true marker for addiction, though, is that people still smoke even though they know smoking is bad for them " affecting their lives, their health, and their families in unhealthy ways. In fact, most people who smoke want to quit. point 5: Smoking is a waste of money, the average cost of a pack of cigarettes ranges from $4.96 Kentucky to $14.50 New york. . http://www.theawl.com... From those 2 numbers we can get the average cost of a pack of cigarettes in the USA which is $9.73. If we look at the average number of cigarettes smoked by a smoker per day we get just over 1 pack (20 cigarettes) but we will round to a pack to make the numbers easier. Therefore a smoker spends $3,551 per year on cigarettes ("national average spent by lower- income smokers " those with a household income under $25,000 " was 14 percent" . http://abcnews.go.com...). point 6: Using the data from my fifth point we can see that if a low income individual gets addicted to smoking (which is very likely to happen) then they will be spending $3,551 per year on cigarettes, think about the other things these low income individuals could be using that money on. According to . http://earlystart.blogs.cnn.com... it costs a family of 4 $146 for food each month this means that they will spend an average of $7,008 dollars on food per year (keep in mind this is the bare minimum of food needed) I am sure that if a family of 4 making $25,000 or less could save $7,102 on not smoking (both parents are average smokers) that it would make a big difference on the quality of life for them and there children. point 7: A lot of people will argue that if you are only harming yourself then it is your decision what you do and I would generally agree with that. However this is not the case with smoking, while smoking you are harming the people around you in two ways. Second Hand Smoke:smoke inhaled involuntarily from tobacco being smoked by others "Second Hand Smoke contains about 4,000 chemicals. Many of these chemicals are dangerous; more than 50 are known to cause cancer. " Third Hand Smoke:"Tobacco smoke gets into the air and its residue stays on walls, floors, furniture, toys, and clothes. This smoke that adults carry around with them on their clothes is called thirdhand smoke. " Smoking and Children:"Parents who smoke cause many health problems for their children. Some of the problems they cause are making asthma worse, bringing on more colds and ear infections, and increasing the risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Also "Research has shown that smoking during pregnancy causes health problems for both mothers and babies, such as: Miscarriage,Premature (early) birth,Low birth weight (three final points from . http://www.smokefreephilly.org... ) Conclusion: Smoking is not only a serious health hazard to yourself but also to people you are around while( and after) smoking, and your children. Smoking is addicting and is very expensive, Overall there are no pro's to smoking and lets not forget 1/5th of the deaths in America each year are caused by smoking. Those are the reasons that we need to ban smoking.

I will say students can bring their cell phones to school, but not in the classroom, if they are given permission to. I choose no because today there are debates if students should bring it to school or not, but this majors mostly on classroom and learning topics since alot say that students get distracted by devices or they can't learn by this or that with device in their possession. I am saying that they can't bring in in the classroom, and they can just put in their locker until they are able to get it, and schools should tell students if they have an emergency use the phone in the school office if they need to call someone or their parents, or if they forgot their homework, project, or their stuff, come prepared, especially in high school, cause no one has chances.

A student always carries around their phones. I have never said that they cannot use their phones for extracurricular activities or cases where the bus breaks down. They can, and they will. I am only saying, based on the sources you have linked to as your first argument, that students will not benefit from using their phones for school. I am not arguing from the perspective that students cannot have phones at all; I am arguing the fact that using cell phones in school will not benefit in educational matters, which is what your links state.

It appears that my opponent has no knowledge of viruses or germs and is just here to play a bluffing game on who has the responsiblity of proving that they are right. As I m not interested in playing polical games, I can't respond to his nonsesne until he offers some logical argument.


Question: Is Mobile Phone Radiation Harmless?

Children should not be provided with mobile phones until they reach the age of 14. I concur that children should not possess mobile phones prior to the age of 14. In today's society, there are companies that specifically create mobile phones aimed at young children. There are phones for kids adorned with images of cartoon characters to captivate the attention of children and boost sales. Kids have become a target market for mobile phones as well! When children own phones, it can have negative effects on them, such as:

1. Educators in schools are reporting an increase in classroom indiscipline since young children started bringing mobile phones to school. According to teachers, students who bring cell phones to school talk on the phone or send messages during class, causing them to lose focus and fall behind their peers. Their attention is solely on the mobile phone rather than on their studies. Teachers observe that students with mobile phones are less interested in learning during class hours, as their focus is more on the mobile phone than on the lesson being taught.

2. For some children who own a cell phone, it serves as a status symbol among their peers. The more modern and stylish the phone, the better it boosts their prestige among friends and classmates. Mobile phones can significantly impact children and lead to undesirable changes in their lifestyle. These children become excessively preoccupied with the phone. They are constantly checking messages and neglecting important activities that young children should engage in. Instead of spending time outdoors playing sports and participating in creative activities and hobbies, they spend a majority of their time on the phone. Scientists warn that being in constant contact with others can lead to addiction.

3. Research suggests that mobile phones should only be given to children aged 14 and above. Children under 14 should not be provided with mobile phones, as their brains are too sensitive to withstand the effects of mobile radiation. Since the tissues in the brain and body are still developing, these radiations can cause cellular damage. Due to the absorption of radiation, children may experience severe health issues. Although adults are also affected by these radiations, the impact is more severe in children due to increased radiation absorption. Experts also suspect a connection between childhood cancer and mobile phone usage among children.

4. There is a high likelihood of mobile phone misuse by children who possess them. Children may send and receive inappropriate messages and images. They can also access adult websites.

5. In our dangerous world, there are numerous instances of crimes against children. Parents of children with mobile phones must take steps to ensure their safety

The benefits clearly outweigh the cons. A POSSIBLE carelessness vs the reality that GPS makes it easier to find children. Pro never negates that being able to access wifi from anywhere with data plans is beneficial. Therefore it is negated.

THEY SHOULD BE able to bring there phones in school because after school they might b staying an they parents might need to get in touch with them an the teacher phone might be down so how they gone get in touch with them an hat if the child wanna go over a friend house how would they get in touch with the parent or what if they just wanted to walk home or what if they missed there bus and the teachers wont let the child back in the school then what

Are you sure you don't mean the internet? Cars are technology. They are a pretty important part of our lifes. Lights are techonolgy. Furnaces are technology. "BUT I meant that everybody who are using the smartphones and facebook(social websites in main) are not being connected to the whole world. " So without social websites they will be connected to the whole world (other countries) more than if they didn't have those websites? I don't think this makes sense. "They don't feel time while sitting in a computer club or playing PS or X-box. " It is their choise. In real life you can take drugs and get addicted and get far more worse things. The people who actually do that are not so much anyways. Everything has a bad side. But I find that the internet does more good than harm. "For example, when friends meeting to chill out together they don't talk much to each other because of the internet in their smartphones - that is also big problem. " I don't think this is true. You are probably talking about rare cases. Give more sources in your arguments. The human life on earth wasn't going to be so good without technology. I don't see a reason why technology does more harm than good.

I want to first take this opportunity to say thank you to this forum and its participants. I look forward to this debate. Currently there are 7 states (Calif., Conn., Md., N.J., N.Y., Ore. and Wash.), D.C. and the Virgin Islands that prohibit all drivers from using hand held cell phones while driving. I wish to debate this type of legislation. I believe that cell phone use while driving should be not become illegal in any form. I oppose actually doing the action, but do not see where making it illegal will help. I find that holding a conversation on a cell phone while driving is no more distracting or different than being engaged with a passenger or kids in the back seat, eating fast food or messing around with a music tape, CD or MP3 player. To legally prohibit cell phones being used while operating a vehicle infringes on my personal rights as a motorist. I know that it is distracting and therefore will not use it in my car. Do we have to place a law on all "unacceptable" behaviors. People still drink and drive, smoke marijuana, etc... even though it's illegal. Thank you for whoever decides to side with "Making Cell phone usage while driving illegal". I'll be looking forward to the debate.

Cell phones should not be allowed in school, because they are a distraction to kids in school and they will not pay attention in school. They will text each other and cheat on tests and things like that. Kids dont need there cell phone in school at all, so ya.

Based from research completed at the United States Environmental Assessment Center, Dihydrogen monoxide: •is also known as hydric acid, and is the major component of acid rain. •contributes to the Greenhouse Effect. •may cause severe burns. •accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals. •may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes. •has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients. Additionally, dihydrogen monoxide is found in many of the foods we eat, used as a solvent in most pesticides (and cannot be removed even after washing. ) Athletes use dihydrogen monoxide as a performance enhancing substance, a leading component in all alcoholic beverages, and also sold as a main ingredient in household cleaners. Inhalation of this chemical can cause almost certain death if medical treatment is not administered immediately. For those who have become dependent, dihydrogen monoxide withdrawal means almost certain death. The worst part is that it is found in every lake, river, and ocean. I propose that this substance should be banned, and more information about this dangerous chemical can be found at www. dhmo. org and . http://www.netreach.net...

Good day Mr. Patrick and thanks for considering my parameters. I would like to do the rebuttal on this cross-examination part. 1.)Lazy students used to not go to the library. Fewer sources were requested for papers. Students using calculators are using them to do math their parents were never taught. Technology makes it possible to do more. We can get more from libraries because there are a lot of books in it while if you search in the internet (like google or Encarta), there is no credible source because it is internet while books there are authors. It is better to work than to depend on technology and be lazy. Calculators are one of the reasons why children become lazy, before, people use long multiplication, addition, rooting etc. but now that we have calculators, we become lazy and depend on it. Some math problems aren't solved by calculators (long divisions or polynomial division), so if we are used or dependent to calculators, we get more difficult in learning and answering 2.)All light is a form of radiation. Working outside in the sun will also harm your vision. Libraries rely on technology too. The modern printing press makes books affordable. The lighting system is usually some kind of modern electrical system. Compare the radiant energy of the two. I refer this one to students/kids, do kids work outside? No. they just play outside, but not so long, but if a child uses a computer, he is focused in radiation which can lead to visual problems. Show me a proof that working outside and using a computer share the same amount of radiation. 3.)What are your sources for this magical 120 number? 120 years has never been the typical life span, in spite of what the bible might say. Even you yourself can observe this. Have you noticed that a lifespan of a person gets lower and lower since the technology started? Bible says that persons live up to the age of 500+. I meant the present day (1940's) they reach the age of 120+ but as years passed by, it went lower to 74 (2007 estimate) 4.)Not every activity we do as students is going to be education. We've found ways to waste our time for thousands of years. For example, we've known how to produce alcohol for thousands of years. The negative effects of going to a "bad" website are highly over rated. "Synthetic food" is still food. We eat a lot of processed food that is less healthy, but in most cases our food came from the same farm type establishment as always. We are more unhealthy on account of the great abundance of food available. Alcohol is produced in the present times, how can you make a liquid of different solution that form like a sanitizer? Obviously, thru technology. It is not "over rated" because it is usually the tendency of teens to go thru, they can gather information from their friends or thru curiousity. "processed food" means that it came from a machinery, so it is technology that brought the synthesized food which are hazardous to our health. A very popular example is softdrinks. Studies show that a glass of it can clean a bath room with its acidity. And with that I end my speech.

you are right there are many other thing that Pollution the air but we schould try and stop that littles thing and no we cant stop cars form driveing by and yes there is a non somking and somking places but the somke is still and the air we schould try and stop somkimg there is a lot of other thing we should try it stop to also you and a child are diffent a child is going to want to do waht a adult do you know its and wrong and why its wrong if you talk to your child about why somkeing bad and the child see other people do it what the point of talking to it then Reducing adult smoking may eliminate role models who lead children to light up Smoking can harm our bodies in many ways, but it is especially harmful to the lungs of a person with asthmas. Tobacco smoke is a powerful trigger of asthma symptoms. That is why I am extremely agreed that, smoking should be ban form public places Usually, smokings are allowed at the sideways, restaurant and also at the community centers. These places have many people including the children. Let says, there is a smoker at those places; automatically the people surroundings will be the secondhand smoker. Usually, people don't smoke because they understand the danger of smoking. But, what we worried about is the secondhand smoker. It is because the secondhand smoke may be the main factor in causing to a number of health problems. Mostly, the secondhand smoke will irritate our lungs and it also can reduce the oxygen in our blood. people should not somek and publice place also second hand somke. The secondhand smokes also will effects for the other people especially the children. we do not need people who somke around use or our kids .

Wow, what a waist of time. It seems that you not only have no evidence, you also have no argument. My humble apologies to anyone viewing this debate for it being such a waist.

cell phones should not be allowed in school because 73% of students use their cellphones to cheat on test. Using cellphones in school can be a distraction, they text in class, they listen to music.


Question: Is Mobile Phone Radiation Harmless?

They pose a cancer risk.

It's common knowledge that radiation is detrimental to our health. However, we often overlook the fact that cell phones emit radiation to communicate with base stations. Studies have revealed that phones emit higher levels of radiation when they are farther from a base station. People who reside in areas distant from these stations and frequently use cell phones are at a higher risk of developing cancer. This research indicates that cell phones are indeed unsafe; they contribute to a disease for which we are still largely unaware of a cure.

Everyone has his own right to chose what is beneficial to him. Every organism has his own sides, and everybody should chose good diets for himself. In conclusion, I want to say that dieting is not totally harmful for health if it is right diet.

I admire you for attempting to quit your Internet addiction. For the following reasons the Internet does more good than harm. Contention #1: Correlation Does Not Prove Causation. This is one of the most and logical Philosophies ever. It has yet to be refuted. This basically states a logic that just because the alphabet can be used to write insults, it doesn't make it a bad thing, and doesn't prove anything special. For example, I have a really big head. One of my friends has a really small head. But he is way smarter than I am. So just because I have a bigger head it doesn't mean that I am smarter. This is what this Philosophy is stating. This can be used as a example for this debate as well. The internet is not completely safe. No has and/or ever say it is. So simply just because the Internet, has bad things, it doesn't mean there are insufficient good things to balance it out. In fact there are more good things on the Internet than bad things. I personally have a lot of people around me who's lives evolve around the internet, and yet they are still the same person as they were when hearing someone is using the internet is rare. Bottom Line: The Internet Does More Good Than Harm. Contention #2: Personal Development The Internet has revolutionized the way we look to enhance living environment, and more importantly our entire lives for the better. The Internet has so many wonderful things we can do with it. Because of the Internet we can: Find Jobs Because of the Internet we can: Submit Resumes Because of the Internet we can: Gain Knowledge Because of the Internet we can: Increase Confidence Because of the Internet we can: Connect With Other People Because of the Internet we can: Go To School Etc. So all these (and so many more), are helping our World, Economy, and our selves grow, and become enhanced! Translation: We live better lives because of the internet. So now I ask you: The internet is giving you a better life. Does it do more good than harm? I would say YES. Bottom Line: The Internet is helping our world grow. Contention #3: Our world is working and has eliminated lots of negative aspects of the Internet. 1. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is act put in place to reduce the amount of illegal activity on the internet. "It aims to address legal issues concerning online interactions and the Internet in the Philippines. Among the cybercrime offenses included in the bill are cybersquatting, cybersex, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data and libel" 2. Both Windows, and Macintosh (including iOS) OS' have security features inlace to protect, humans from Harmful and Illegal acts/uses online. These features allow the user to control what websites and/or content the computer will be able to show. This is protecting our selves, and maybe even more importantly the future of our world - our children. So these features are helping us, or you could even say, making us stay away from terrible thing online such as Pornography, Identity Theft, Bad Influences, ETC. Bottom Line: Our world has and is working to eliminate bad things from the Internet. Sources: 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Not all communication needs to be face to face. You are turning this debate into a debate for cell phones completley not just for kids. Your video was irrelevant and so was your argument. I understand their is some sext with phones but parents should be making sure that does not happen.

Its the phones the blame! KILL THE PHONESSSS!

Life survived well before we ever had technology, now it seems like teenagers need it every day, but did you know about the side-effects? Social media has greatly become more popular over the years, thanks to teenagers gaining more and more technology. There have been studies done that show social media in a negative light. Although many teens today find social media interesting and fun, it is the root of many problems for teenagers.

No you are not. I challenge you to prove your assertion.

I think we should have phones in schools because if there was say an accident and there was no phone around anywhere and the front office was a ways a away then what would you do and if infact you run up there as fast as you could and by the time you came back the person who had an accident die then it would be the schools fault and they are the one to blame, but if the school board would allow us the students to have phones in school then that person may had a chance to still be alive and then the school would not be the one to blame.

Greenhouse emissions have not been shown to harm anyone. Data such as that put forward by various climatological organizations such as IPCC to the contrary relies on the false assumption that ice cores are a static system (i.e. that the CO2 readings in them will be the same as when the ice was formed). http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:IBOId0mAu6QJ:www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf+Zbigniew+Jaworowski+ice+core+data&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a They also rely on the assumption-again false- that correlation equals causation. Do I need a source for that? By the way, if indeed correlation did equal causation, the Tunguska event (look it up on wikipedia) and the increase of greenhouse emissions would BOTH have to cause global warming. So also, of course, would the decrease of pirate populations. I await the evidence that greenhouse gases cause significant problems. When such evidence is provided, then we can discuss the severity of measures to be taken about it (One easy method of mitigation would be developing countries making sure their emissions are full of traditional pollutants, such as sulfates, as these happen to have a cooling effect on the earth. It's a question of whether that or a temperature increase or other possibilities are worse. But it is only such a question when the evidence, not yet provided, is shown.

We should not allow nuclear for everything (weapon, electricity, etc). It will gives us many risk, for our environment or our health. So I do BELIEVE, nuclear is HARMFUL ! Nuclear should be banned !

I will say students can bring their cell phones to school, but not in the classroom, if they are given permission to. I choose no because today there are debates if students should bring it to school or not, but this majors mostly on classroom and learning topics since alot say that students get distracted by devices or they can't learn by this or that with device in their possession. I am saying that they can't bring in in the classroom, and they can just put in their locker until they are able to get it, and schools should tell students if they have an emergency use the phone in the school office if they need to call someone or their parents, or if they forgot their homework, project, or their stuff, come prepared, especially in high school, cause no one has chances.


Question: Is Mobile Phone Radiation Harmless?

Cell phone usage has been wrongly implicated as a primary cause of brain cancer.
I will present two points to argue against this claim: 1) The correlation between cell phone usage and brain cancer is still under debate, 2) It's illogical to label cell phone usage as the leading cause of brain cancer if it's not even proven to cause it, or if it's not the predominant cause. 1) There have been numerous studies attempting to establish a link between cell phone usage and brain cancer, but the results have been inconsistent. The sources provided below illustrate how cell phone usage is not associated with brain cancer: "A large-scale study conducted by Danish researchers found no connection between cell phone usage and the risk of developing brain tumors in adults." [Source] "Brain tumor rates in Northern Europe have remained stable up to 2008, despite the widespread use of cell phones." [Source] "One of the largest and longest studies on the subject found no more brain tumors among people who used cell phones for 17 years than among those who didn't use them." [Source] "A study involving 350,000 people aged 30 and older found no difference in cancer rates between long-term cell phone users and those who didn't have a phone." [Source] "To date, there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer." [Source] "The research team analyzed survey data and found no link between cell phone usage and brain tumors." [Source] "It's highly unlikely that cell phones cause cancer because they emit non-ionizing radiation, which is weak and does not significantly affect living cells." [Source] "A long-term study of Danish mobile phone usage has conclusively determined that there is no connection between mobile phone use and various brain cancers." [Source] "Further research has been published suggesting there is no link between mobile phones and brain cancer." [Source] "In most studies, patients with brain tumors do not report more cell phone use overall than the controls." [Source] "A new study has shown 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." [Source] "Many experts agree that to date, there is no conclusive evidence that links cell-phone use to brain cancer." [Source] - "With 5 billion cell phone users globally, representing nearly three-quarters of the world's population, the incidence and mortality

Thank you Mirza and to the forum. As we close our debate, I would like to first comment on my opponents rebuttals and well documented arguments. Then I will close with my final thoughts. I will kindly disagree about the statement Mirza made in paragraph 1 rebuttal: "To me, this is like saying that we should not try to find a cure for AIDS, because there is still cancer, polio, lupus, and so forth." --> In this statement, Mirza is comparing driving distractions to AIDS which seems to be a drastic comparison. Contracting or being born with a disease is not the same as choosing to engage in distracting driving behavior. We are progressing in identifying new ways to "cure" driver distractions. Blue tooth phones and voice activated controls are examples. The comparison that is mentioned by Mirza is mute. Why do we need a law to tell us that it's wrong and unsafe? How about this... if we want to ensure that no one uses a cell phone in hand while driving, create a law that addresses the car and the cell phone companies. "From this day forward, to ensure driver and pedestrian safety, all new cars come equip with built in speaker phones -voice activated, and cell phones shall not transmit a call nor text if going over the speed limit of 30 mile per hour unless transmitted through the car." Temptation removed, distraction eliminated. Why can't it be a law upon manufacturing companies instead of on the people? Paragraph 2- We are not allowed to drive on other people's property because it's other people's property. It's against the law because it's my property. The limits are in place because of rights of ownership, not because of safety. Road safety analysts predict that by 2030, when all baby boomers are at least 65, they will be responsible for 25% of all fatal crashes. In 2005, 11% of fatal crashes involved drivers that old. [1] Should we place a law now to make it illegal to drive when you are older than 65? I'd still like to point out the mixed messages that many states are more than happy to tweet you with up-to-the-minute directions on how to steer clear of a traffic jam. At least 22 states that ban texting while driving offer some type of service that allows motorists to get information about traffic tie-ups, road conditions or emergencies via Twitter (DeMillo, 2009). As stated in round 2 While I agree Rome was not built in a day, the baby steps in this war against distracted driving should not start legislating a device that will, in a couple years, be more advanced and will not be much of a factor. Let's identify and target activities that have been happening since the creation of the automobile. More than 80% of drivers admit to blatantly hazardous behavior: changing clothes, steering with a foot, painting nails and shaving. (Nationwide Mutual Insurance Survey) [2] People also admit to eating, using mp3 players, applying makeup and engaging in other distracting behaviors. There are many distractions and some by personal choice, others by equipment such as the GPS, and some that are not controllable, such as passengers. Education on how to ignore distractions and drive distraction free is what we should be focusing on. Fatigue is a cognitive distraction that is extremely dangerous. Many accidents are caused by driver fatigue, and police officers even report pulling over drivers for DUI and finding out they are just sleepy. If you are drowsy―especially from medication―then you need to get off the road. [3] It's not illegal. It is easier for you to control the inside of your vehicle. For example, you can make a decision to establish a pre-trip routine to set your radio buttons, mirrors, and seat before you drive. You can also decide not to eat in the car, answer the cell phone, or play movies.[3] It is your responsibility and the responsibility given to you when you receive your driver's license. I will conclude my side of this debate by once again thanking my opponent and this forum. Works cited [1] http://www.usatoday.com... [2] http://www.negligentdriving.com... [3] http://www.dmv.org... DeMillo, A. (2009, Sept 20). Mixed Messages on Texting and Driving. Retrieved from Associated Press and ABC News website as mentioned in round 2

The students should be able to decide if they want to use there time texting. If they want a good or bad education that is their decision. So banning it are only going to make it sneaky and bad.

**Children should use technology like a computer, mobile phone, and television because they can use it for researching information, doing projects, using e-books instead of old and heavy textbooks, it also makes the world closer and smaller by talking in social media programs, also the social media programs can make your child speak up and be confident to talk, it also, improves your communicating skills, last, this is another way to teach children, and the children are interested in.** REBUTTAL I believe that children aren't getting other needed things because of all of these technologies, and their are many dangers to these devices. 1)Invisible Radiation from Wireless"Technology and Electricity Inhibits Your Oxygen Supply https://www.scienceoflight.org... 2)Electrosmog can cause brain fog & electrosensitivity (ES)."Symptoms include: ~ Mental confusion ~ Headaches ~ Disruptive sleep patterns ~ Chronic fatigue ~ Depression ~ Hypersensitivity and erratic blood pressure ~ Skin complaint ~"Behavioural patterns in children 3)Cell phones are addictive. A)One of the worst things with this technology is it allows young minds to have unlimited access to sexually graphic images and pornography. It has been proven that when kids are exposed to sex at a young age, they have future problems with identity, intimacy, and successful relstionships. B)There are studies that link large technology use to anxiety disorders and depression. https://www.google.com... 4)Studies show that too much texting and Social Media affect social skills and growth in a negative way. It's like learning a language. A child is grasping for ways to communicate, and absorbs whatever is there. If the child hears Spanish, they absorb Spanish. If they hear English, they absorb English. If they are in social situations, they learn social skills. If all they primarily see is a device, they absorb communicating through a device, rather than through face to face human interactions. This is not helpful with interacting with kids, adults later, or being successful at work as an adult. https://m.huffpost.com... ----- http://www.dailymail.co.uk... https://www.webmd.com...

the topic is students should be allowed to possess cell phones. My opponent tried to debate a different subject. I also provided actual links from the pro while my opponent sources was logic, and the past experiences. The future is ever changing. Please vote for me!

Thanks for your response. It is important for the voters to note that the entirety of my opponent's argument rests on the argument that second-hand smoke is bad for non-smokers, and it is for this reason that tobacco should be banned. In this round, I will address this argument and thoroughly refute it.There is no evidence that links second-hand smoke with adverse health effects.To date, there is no significant scientific evidence that actually links second-hand smoke with adverse health effects. While smoking tobacco has been around for hundreds of years, the question of whether smoking had adverse health effects has only been around for a hundred years, and the question of whether second-hand smoke has adverse health effects for non-smokers has only been around since the early 70s. The first major study on the adverse health effects of second-hand smoke was published by the EPA in 1993, which concluded that second-hand smoke has a causal link to lung cancer in non-smokers[1]. In fact, this is one of the only studies ever done on this subject, and it is because of this particular study that non-smoking laws have been on the rise since the mid 90s. It is also worth considering that almost every single health and science organization that discusses the adverse health effects of second-hand smoke, such as the Surgeon General, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and the American Hearth Association, all cite this specific study as their primary source [2].So if almost every health and science organization in the world cites this study, then the facts this study presents must be true, right?Wrong.This study done by the EPA was actually overturned by a federal judge in North Carolina [3]. The judge ruled that the EPA's findings in this study were based on limited evidence and the study "adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the agency's public conclusion". In fact, the EPA published the conclusion for this study before it was even over [4].Dominick Armentano, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, analyzed the study and concluded that: "The EPA simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) studies and then, defying all scientific standards, simply changed the “confidence levels” in the statistical analysis from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated smaller sample finally “confessed” that passive smoking was a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had “proven” its preconceived conclusions." [5]I don't know about you, but to me, this sounds pretty terrible. The EPA put its own interests before any sort of scientific integrity and flat out lied to the public. And because of this display of complete dishonesty, hundreds of anti-smoking laws were put into place to account for the non-existent danger of second-hand smoke.At this point you may be thinking, "The EPA study couldn't have been the only significant study done on second-hand smoke". And you would be right. The World Health Organization also published a study in a 1998 press release entitled "PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER, DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU". However, upon actually reading the attached report, anyone could read the conclusion which clearly stated: "Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure." [6][7]To summarize, there is absolutely no credible scientific evidence that can causally link second-hand smoke to adverse health effects, such as lung cancer. I'm not proclaiming that there are no adverse side effects to second-hand smoke, but there is no evidence of it. And because there is no evidence to suggest that any of Pro's claims are true, then no law should be made banning tobacco based on these claims.To conclude my argument, I will answer Pro's question. No, I do not smoke. I hate the smell of smoke and I am pretty disgusted when walking into bars or restaurants that allow it. But just because I don't like a certain activity, it does not give me the right to ban it for everyone else as well. My personal comfort is much less important than the freedom of others. Ultimately, smoking is an activity that individuals are free to participate in if they so desire. And yes, there is plenty of scientific evidence that demonstrates that smoking is pretty bad on your body, and will drastically shorten your lifespan. But this country is based on the principle that you are free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't impact the well-being of others. And because there is no evidence that second-hand smoke is actually bad for non-smokers, it would be completely ridiculous and unconstitutional to put a law in place that bans smoking.Citations:1. http://oaspub.epa.gov... 2. http://www.dailymotion.com... 3. http://money.cnn.com... 4. http://www.davehitt.com... 5. http://www.cato.org... 6. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org... (full report)7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (abstract of report with the conclusion)

In cases of cyber bullying, online social networks are the major factors. Banning phones won't do much to help stop that because there are computers, ipads, or other devices that have internet. One reason that banning cell phones to teens is not a great idea is that, (according to Pew Research Internet Project) "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". Also, there is way for parents to limit the amount of internet usage(there are phones designed with parental control). In addition, for school ,instead of banning phones, many schools have regulations that forbid students using phone during school and make phones less disruptive.

"Personally i do not believe religion is a bad thing necessarily as it provides a sense of purpose and meaning and gives humanity a reason to think that everything you do matters because anything you do will effect you in the afterlife. However I myself do not practice religion and here's why. Firstly their is little evidence to in fact support god or any deities existence to be true and I cannot bring myself to believe in something with little if any evidence to support." Actually this is not true, there is a lot of proof of G-d, here are a few links: http://www.divineinformation.com... http://www.divineinformation.com... Secondly religion does more harm than good as it causes and has caused at the very least 60+% of humanity's wars for a variety of reasons such as conflicting beliefs and values, corruption(I.E The catholic church 1520-1630+Modern era) Even odd or unusual practices (I.E beheading animals to cleanse oneself of sin, covering both your hands in hives of tropical bullet wasps to become a man, chanting odd or even threatening sounds even BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE). The Catholic Church was so messed up because #1 They were Christians, and #2 Ob-course your Church is going to have some issues if your mission statement is "go forth and conquer and to conquer," no joke! This was Constantine's (the founder of Catholicism) "revelation" from god that told him to start the catholic Church. #3, Catholicism was founded by Constantine, who raped and killed his sister, yeah. The rest are pagan rituals which really have no relevance to this debate, anyway, I challenge you to prove any of this is true with Judaism or Sikhism. "Thirdly it causes IMMENSE amounts of legal,verbal and social tension causing schools/workplaces/manufacturers to never speak of it or be drowned in lawsuits because it's "Offensive." The same could be said about opposing political views. "Finally religion in many cases has severely halted technological development most notably the middle ages and feudal japan with many more such instances appearing throughout history. Thank you for reading my argument and I hope that you will chose my side." Technology advanced slowly through the middle ages because the Catholic Church made everyone believe in what they believe in, this was a religious institution, not religion itself. Feudal Japan advanced slowly because they isolated themselves from the rest of the planet so new ideas couldn't get in, and the majority of their population was slaves (serfs, it's the same thing though) , and that means that the majority of their geniuses are slaves and cannot advance technology.

The benefits clearly outweigh the cons. A POSSIBLE carelessness vs the reality that GPS makes it easier to find children. Pro never negates that being able to access wifi from anywhere with data plans is beneficial. Therefore it is negated.

Wow, what a waist of time. It seems that you not only have no evidence, you also have no argument. My humble apologies to anyone viewing this debate for it being such a waist.