Screen time limits for teens: a discussion lesson high schoolers argue about

Screen Time Limits for Teenagers: Debate Prep

MOTION: The government should limit daily screen time for teenagers under 16.

PRO Arguments (supporting the motion)

• Health protection: Excessive screen time is linked to poor sleep, eye strain, and mental health issues. Teenagers' brains are still developing and they lack the self-control adults have. A limit protects them during critical years.

• Leveling the playing field: Not all parents can monitor screen use. A government policy ensures every teenager gets the same protection, regardless of whether their家庭 enforces rules.

• Precedent exists: South Korea had the Shutdown Law for online games (2011–2021). Other countries restrict gambling, alcohol, and driving for minors. Screen limits are the same category.

• Academic performance: Studies show students who use phones more than 3 hours daily outside of school have lower test scores. A limit would improve national education outcomes.

CON Arguments (opposing the motion)

• Unenforceable: How do you track it? Students will use VPNs, their parents' phones, or friends' devices. The policy will fail like the Shutdown Law did, ignored by those who want to ignore it.

• Overreach: The government should not control personal choices that do not harm others. Parents, not politicians, should decide what is appropriate for their own children.

• Emergency access: What if a teenager needs their phone to call for help, check a bus route, or finish homework after hitting the limit? A blanket cutoff creates dangerous situations.

• Wrong target: The problem is not the phone, it is the content. Banning two hours of educational YouTube is not the same as banning two hours of TikTok. A time limit treats all screen use as equal when it is not.